I was planning to write a sole synopsis and commentary on the recent study, but others, like Mangan (back from hiatus), have done a good job covering the essential hypotheses and conclusions in the paper, so instead I’ll post in addition, in the near future, an email from a reader who forwarded to CH his astute objections and comments to the original Baumeister paper in an email sent to the author. (I don’t know if Baumeister replied.)

(Quick aside: Mangan asks a related question regarding a prominent claim in the Baumeister paper that men supported the entrance of women into the workforce to increase men’s sexual access: “Is there a direct relationship between looser morals and more women in public life?” I would bet that there is, and that a trend toward higher female participation in the workforce, and particularly in government and similar social gatekeeper occupations, is one of the crucial indicators that a nation is beginning the downward spiral into stasis and eventual decline.)

Continuing, some choice quotes (with editor commentary) pulled from the latest Baumeister/Vohs (a woman!) paper to give you a flavor for its contents.

In simple terms, we proposed that in sex, women are the suppliers and men constitute the demand (Baumeister and Vohs 2004). Hence the anti-democratic, seemingly paradoxical sex ratio findings that Regnerus describes. When women are in the minority, the sexual marketplace conforms to their preferences: committed relationships, widespread virginity, faithful partners, and early marriage. For example, American colleges in the 1950s conformed to that pattern. In our analysis, women benefit in such circumstances because the demand for their sexuality exceeds the supply. In contrast, when women are the majority, such as on today’s campuses as well as in some ethnic minority communities, things shift toward what men prefer: Plenty of sex without commitment, delayed marriage, extradyadic copulations, and the like. [ed: yep, life has been good for those of us who know the score.] […]

Sexual marketplaces take the shape they do because nature has biologically built a disadvantage into men: a huge desire for sex that makes men dependent on women. Men’s greater desire puts them at a disadvantage, just as when two parties are negotiating a possible sale or deal, the one who is more eager to make the deal is in a weaker position than the one who is willing to walk away without the deal. [ed: this is why practiced male aloofness is attractive to women — it signals that the man is holding a stronger market position, and that his goods are therefore valuable.] Women certainly desire sex too — but as long as most women desire it less than most men, women have a collective advantage, and social roles and interactions will follow scripts that give women greater power than men (Baumeister et al. 2001). [ed: culture emerges from sexually differentiated genetic roots.] We have even concluded that the cultural suppression of female sexuality throughout much of history and across many different cultures has largely had its roots in the quest for marketplace advantage (see Baumeister and Twenge 2002). Women have often sustained their advantage over men by putting pressure on each other to restrict the supply of sex available to men. As with any monopoly or cartel, restricting the supply leads to a higher price. […]

Recent work has found that across a large sample of countries today, the economic and political liberation of women is positively correlated with greater availability of sex (Baumeister and Mendoza 2011). Thus, men’s access to sex has turned out to be maximized not by keeping women in an economically disadvantaged and dependent condition, but instead by letting them have abundant access and opportunity. [ed: was the sexual and feminist revolution fomented by undersexed beta males? a case can be made.] In an important sense, the sexual revolution of the 1970s was itself a market correction. Once women had been granted wide opportunities for education and wealth, they no longer had to hold sex hostage (Baumeister and Twenge 2002). [ed: that is, they no longer had to suffer the indignity of beta provider courtship. now that they had the resources, it was open season on alpha male cock hopping. the sexual revolution appears to have backfired on beta males expecting a bigger slice of the snatch pie.]

What does all this mean for men? The social trends suggest the continuing influence of a stable fact, namely the strong desire of young men for sexual activity. As the environment has shifted, men have simply adjusted their behavior to find the best means to achieve this same goal. Back in 1960, it was difficult to get sex without getting married or at least engaged, and so men married early. To be sure, this required more than being willing to bend the knee, declare love, and offer a ring. To qualify as marriage material, a man had to have a job or at least a strong prospect of one (such as based on an imminent college degree). The man’s overarching goal of getting sex thus motivated him to become a respectable stakeholder contributing to society.

The fact that men became useful members of society as a result of their efforts to obtain sex is not trivial, and it may contain important clues as to the basic relationship between men and culture (see Baumeister 2010). Although this may be considered an unflattering characterization, and it cannot at present be considered a proven fact, we have found no evidence to contradict the basic general principle that men will do whatever is required in order to obtain sex, and perhaps not a great deal more. [ed: that last clause is critical. men will always take the path of least resistance to sex. it is up to women to make that path more difficult if they want to extract more concessions from men.] (One of us characterized this in a previous work as, “If women would stop sleeping with jerks, men would stop being jerks.”) If in order to obtain sex men must become pillars of the community, or lie, or amass riches by fair means or foul, or be romantic or funny, then many men will do precisely that. This puts the current sexual free-for-all on today’s college campuses in a somewhat less appealing light than it may at first seem. [ed: what’s interesting and unspoken here is that the sexual free-for-all is chugging along nicely well beyond and outside of the college years, with the difference being that, in their 20s and 30s, a select number of fewer men (let’s call them… alpha males) are enjoying the ample premarital rewards of sexually available women.] Giving young men easy access to abundant sexual satisfaction deprives society of one of its ways to motivate them to contribute valuable achievements to the culture. [ed: damn, i’m torn. do i want a thriving society or easier access to sex? yeeeeah… i’ll take the latter and leave the self-sacrifice required of the former for the anti-poolside chumps.]

The changes in gender politics since 1960 can be seen as involving a giant trade, in which both genders yielded something of lesser importance to them in order to get something they wanted more (Baumeister and Vohs 2004). As Regnerus states, partly based on our own extensive survey of research findings, men want sex, indeed more than women want it (Baumeister et al. 2001). Women, meanwhile, want not only marriage but also access to careers and preferential treatment in the workplace. [ed: women are the reproductively more valuable sex, and so it makes sense that evolution would have “gifted” women with an oversized entitlement complex and the inability to engage in self-criticism.]

The giant trade thus essentially involved men giving women not only easy access but even preferential treatment in the huge institutions that make up society, which men created. [ed: but the grand bargain did not work out as intended for the masses of beta males who acquiesced to the new girl order. while alpha males certainly saw more action from “liberated” women, the average joe did not. instead, all the average joe got in return for sacrificing his workplace status in hopes of easier sex was… a heaping helping of humiliation and wage stagnation and anti-joe animus, which continues at an accelerated pace to this day. this is a critical distinction i would like to see Baumeister address.] Today most schools, universities, corporations, scientific organizations, governments, and many other institutions have explicit policies to protect and promote women. It is standard practice to hire or promote a woman ahead of an equally qualified man. Most large organizations have policies and watchdogs that safeguard women’s interests and ensure that women gain preferential treatment over men. Parallel policies or structures to protect men’s interests are largely nonexistent and in many cases are explicitly prohibited. Legal scholars, for example, point out that any major new law is carefully scrutinized by feminist legal scholars who quickly criticize any aspect that could be problematic or disadvantageous to women, and so all new laws are women-friendly. Nobody looks out for men, and so the structural changes favoring women and disadvantaging men have accelerated (Baumeister and Vohs 2004). […]

Even today, the women’s movement has been a story of women demanding places and preferential treatment in the organizational and institutional structures that men create, rather than women creating organizations and institutions themselves. Almost certainly, this reflects one of the basic motivational differences between men and women, which is that female sociality is focused heavily on one-to-one relationships, whereas male sociality extends to larger groups networks of shallower relationships (e.g., Baumeister and Sommer 1997; Baumeister 2010). Crudely put, women hardly ever create large organizations or social systems. That fact can explain most of the history of gender relations, in which the gender near-equality of prehistorical societies was gradually replaced by progressive inequality—not because men banded together to oppress women, but because cultural progress arose from the men’s sphere with its large networks of shallow relationships, while the women’s sphere remained stagnant because its social structure emphasized intense one-to-one relationships to the near exclusion of all else (see Baumeister 2010). All over the world and throughout history (and prehistory), the contribution of large groups of women to cultural progress has been vanishingly small. [ed: what do you think will happen to a nation’s cultural progress when it goes out of its way to give preferential treatment to its women who, as a sex, prefer tawdry one-to-one relationships to men’s preference for the growth potential in large shallow relationships? that’s right, the economy and the culture come more and more to reflect women’s preferences. result: progress that is the hallmark of rising empires grinds to a halt.] […]

Why have men acquiesced so much in giving women the upper hand in society’s institutions? It falls to men to create society (because women almost never create large organizations or cultural systems). It seems foolish and self-defeating for men then to meekly surrender advantageous treatment in all these institutions to women. Moreover, despite many individual exceptions, in general and on average men work harder at their jobs in these institutions than women, thereby enabling men to rise to the top ranks. As a result, women continue to earn less money and have lower status than men, which paradoxically is interpreted to mean that women’s preferential treatment should be continued and possibly increased (see review of much evidence in Baumeister2010). Modern society is not far from embracing explicit policies of “equal pay for less work,” as one of us recently proposed. Regardless of that prospect, it appears that preferential treatment of women throughout the workforce is likely to be fairly permanent. Because of women’s lesser motivation and ambition, they will likely never equal men in achievement, and their lesser attainment is politically taken as evidence of the need to continue and possibly increase preferential treatment for them. [ed: the preferences shall continue until morale improves.]

But this pattern of male behavior makes more sense if we keep in mind that getting sex is a high priority for men, especially young men. Being at a permanent disadvantage in employment and promotion prospects, as a result of affirmative action policies favoring women, is certainly a cost to young men, but perhaps not a highly salient one. What is salient is that sex is quite readily available. As Regnerus reports, even a man with dismal career prospects (e.g., having dropped out of high school) can find a nice assortment of young women to share his bed.

Mangan makes a valid objection to this Baumeister theory that affirmative action for women increased men’s sexual access by noting that it was likely contraception and cost-of-sex-reducing technology — the Pill, abortion, and penicillin — which opened the floodgates to “free” love. I put “free” in quotes because in reality, the sexual revolution did not benefit all men equally; alpha males got the lion’s share of premarital sex from economically self-sufficient women. Beta males suffered more than usual, having to endure watching from the sidelines as alpha males cleaned up, while simultaneously being deprived of the best leverage they had in the sexual market: their promise of marital resources.

However, I do think Baumeister is onto something true, in that increased female workplace participation meant that men with reasonably high status jobs had a lot more fleshy temptresses from whom to conveniently choose, and that women must certainly have felt less restricted in their sexuality once they were meeting their own financial needs and could afford to risk happy dalliances with sexually desirable, but more non-committal, alpha males.

Again, Le Chateau was on top of all this years ago, when we proposed a sea change in the American cultural landscape heralded by the coming of the FourFiveSix Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse:

Effective and widely available contraceptives (the Pill, condom, and the de facto contraceptive abortion).

Easy peasy no-fault divorce.

Women’s economic independence (hurtling towards women’s economic advantage if the college enrollment ratio is any indication).

Rigged feminist-inspired laws that have caused a disincentivizing of marriage for men and an incentivizing of divorce for women.

Penicillin (reduced the cost of contracting STDs)

Widely available hardcore porn.

I added numbers five and six to the list of Sexual Apocalypse Sirens, because they seem to me just as important to understanding how the sexual market changed in the last fifty or so years.

So, a crib sheet of quippy replies if you ever need it to send a feminist or manboob howling with indignation:

Toss into a social salad bowl already brimming with an influx of non-European immigrants thanks to the 1965 soft genocide act, mix thoroughly, and voila!: a huge, inexorable, relentless leftward shift in American politics, an explosion of single moms, wage stagnation, government growth, upper class childlessness, lower class dysgenics, and a creaking, slow deterioration in the foundational vigor of the nation and the gutting of the pride of her people.

Into this pot pie of portent throw in the Skittles Man, Bring the Movies Man, Nah Man, and Disappeared Again Man, for whom girls have always swooned but who now, thanks to relaxed pressure from women themselves requiring men to put a ring on it before getting any huggy or kissy, and the incentivizing of risky sexual behavior by government policy and contraceptive technology, could enjoy sex without the entanglement of marriage or gainful employment.

Game, for all the shit it gets from the usual suspects, was just a rational response to a radically altered playing field. It didn’t cause this calamity; it just profited from it.

Meanwhile, beta males are left scratching their block-like skulls, wondering what the fuck just happened.

Back to Baumeister.

Nowadays young men [ed: correction: alpha males] can skip the wearying detour of getting education and career prospects to qualify for sex. Nor does he have to get married and accept all those costs, including promising to share his lifetime earnings and forego other women forever. Female sex partners are available without all that. [ed: …to those men with charm in the game.]

So maybe the young men don’t care that much about how the major social institutions in the world of work have become increasingly rigged to favor women. Sex has become free and easy. This is today’s version of the opiate of the (male) masses. The male who beds multiple women is enjoying life quite a bit, and so he may not notice or mind the fact that his educational and occupational advancement is vaguely hampered by all the laws and policies that push women ahead of him. After all, one key reason he wanted that advancement was to get sex, and he already has that. Climbing the corporate ladder for its own sake may still hold some appeal, but undoubtedly it was more compelling when it was vital for obtaining sex. Success isn’t as important as it once was, when it was a prerequisite for sex. [ed: success isn’t as important for beta males, either, because success doesn’t provide the same sexual market leverage like it used to for them. how is a no-game-having, 9-to-5er beta male supposed to woo a lawyercunt pulling six figures?]

If men don’t need career success to get sex, then what if anything do they need success for? Some research indicates that career motivation really intensifies for men when they become fathers. Indeed, it has long been known that the transition to parenthood has opposite effects by gender. New mothers withdraw from their work and careers; new fathers embrace work and career with enhanced seriousness and motivation (for a review see Baumeister 1991). [ed: the “pay gap” explained.] […]

With regard to work, the societal changes are producing less contribution by men and more by women. These might offset, with few or no costs to society. Still, replacing male with female workers may bring some changes, insofar as the two genders approach work differently. Compared to men, women have higher rates of absenteeism, seek social rewards more than financial ones, are less ambitious, work fewer hours overall, are more prone to take extended career interruptions, and identify less with the organizations they work for. They are more risk averse, resulting in fewer entrepreneurs and inventions. (Baumeister 2010, noted an appalling gender imbalance in new patents; nobody is seriously suggesting that the U.S. Patent office systematically discriminates against women, but women simply do not apply for patents in anything close to the rate that men do.) Women are less interested in science and technology fields. They create less wealth (for themselves and others). [ed: the roman empire wept.] […]

The female contribution of sex to the marriage is evanescent: As women age, they lose their sexual appeal much faster than men lose their status and resources, and some alarming evidence even indicates that wives rather quickly lose their desire for sex (Arndt 2009). To sustain a marriage across multiple decades, many husbands must accommodate to the reality of having to contribute work and other resources to a wife whose contribution of sex dwindles sharply in both quantity and quality—and who also may disapprove sharply of him seeking satisfaction in alternative outlets such as prostitution, pornography, and extramarital dalliance.

Baumeister is a serious realtalker.

We speculate that today’s young men may be exceptionally ill prepared for a lifetime of sexual starvation that is the lot of many modern husbands. The traditional view that a wife should sexually satisfy her husband regardless of her own lack of desire has been eroded if not demolished by feminist ideology that has encouraged wives to expect husbands to wait patiently until the wife actually desires sex, with the result that marriage is a prolonged episode of sexual starvation for the husband. […] Today’s young men spend their young adulthood having abundant sex with multiple partners, and that seems to us to be an exceptionally poor preparation for a lifetime of sexual starvation.

Game can save marriages from the fate of sexual starvation. At least until the wifey is no longer attractive enough to stimulate the hubby. Ah well, waddayagonnado?

Although we have noted warning signs and problems, we remain optimistic. [ed: i don’t.] Despite the obstacles and changing contingencies, men and women have always managed to find each other and work together to create a modicum of happiness for both and to create a sphere in which children can grow, thrive, and sustain the culture for another few decades. [ed: yes, men and women will always find each other. the question is, what form will that finding take? that is the issue which matters for those who seek to maximize the social good.] The coming generation will face novel challenges, but somehow we think they will muddle through and manage to reinvent family life yet again. [ed: sometimes the reinvention is not as good as the original.]

All in all, a stellar paper that lays down the hammer of hurt on the pushers of pretty lies. For this reason, I expect the liars and degenerates and serpentine sophists currently running the country into the ground to thoroughly ignore and/or distort it.

My main objections to the paper center around the fact that Baumeister/Vohs don’t explore female hypergamy and alpha male/beta male distinction in much detail, which is a shortcoming I hope the both of them will address in the future. Nonetheless, their work is essentially a huge vindication of the concepts that the proprietors at Chateau Heartiste have been elucidating since the first day this blog drove a stake through the heart of the reigning discourse and claimed a piece of this decaying culture for itself. And someday, perhaps soon, a real rain will come and wash all the lies off the streets.

Like this:

Related

461 Responses

“Sexual starvation.” Yeah, that is exactly what it is like for most married beta males. I’ve had the unfortunate circumstance of being beta my whole life, and this blog has helped me immensely. When I started being Alpha with my latest girlfriend, the tables turned faster than two-for-one night at Applebee’s. She keeps on trying to force me back into my previous beta shape, so there is a lot of conflict. But a little bit of “see ya later” and no contact from me, and the hamster goes crazy. She said, “You never send me roses.” I responded, “Lots and lots of blowjobs and I *might* think about grabbing some wildflowers off the side of the road — IF you have a vase.”

it is because of your very last senetetcnes: “And someday, perhaps soon, a real rain will come and wash all the lies off the streets.”

ye ar einovoking god’s moral justice noah’s flood zeus’ lighninthingz alozlzlzozozozlzozo which is the beauty that men have ever had over women the rage of achcoileles and anger of moses’ss god, and it is this diveince rage which teh fiat masters sent forth the fmeinsistz do sdetcocnstsurtucct and detsoryte lzozozolzloolozzzozozl

but heartiste ye sens the thunder and moral symmetry and beuatyt of just ligtingand rain deep in yur soul and like noah you too see da flooddesz cocmingz lzozolzlzo

Here’s the problem. Heartiste once defined men as being lesser, middle, and greater omegas, betas and alphas with the ladies. Even the middle and greater omegas as well as all of the betas are getting a higher number and greater variety of women these days than their counterparts omegas and betas did in the past by seducing women. The Alphas are getting considerably more women and a greater variety of women than their counterpart Alphas of the past did. The problem is that the betas and omegas aren’t getting as much sex as their counterparts in the past did. How can this be you might ask. The betas and omegas which always have outnumbered the Alphas by a lot would get consistent sex from their wives if they wanted to in the past, and this is no longer true today. Therefore even though the omegas and betas are getting a greater number and variety of women, they face longer periods of sexual starvation because their wives can and do choose to starve them just because these days they can. the women can do this because most men help the women over the men whereas in the past this was less true. Men on average, especially Western men, are the most pussy-whooped, effeminite, and female thinking men in all civilized human history. Could you really imagine men in the past tolerating sexual starvation? I didn’t think so. The Alphas are swimming in more sexual acts and a greater number and variety of women than ever before in civilized human history. The Alphas are gorging themselves with more acts of sex than ever before while the betas and omegas starve even though all three categories of men have had sex with a greater number and variety of women than ever before. Between internet porn and a greater number and variety of women to have sex with even though the betas and omegas are getting less sexual acts with women, they stay unhappy but compliant enough not to revolt so far even though the situation is overall worse for them. The Alphas love the present situation as it’s better than ever before.

Note that prostitution has been more criminalized and socially stigmitized since women got the vote even though it’s become safer to have sex with professional prostitutes than with amatuer women because of the latex condom which came out in 1920. I know most of you will not accept this as the truth, but it is the truth. Latex condoms prevent the transmission of diseases, and sensible whores will always insist upon using them unlike so many amatuer women. Alcohol and narcotics increases the chance that condoms will not be used or will be used poorly when men have sex with amatuer women. Prostitution was more prevelent a century ago than it is now in the USA. Prostitution gave men variety, numbers, better looking women to have sex with and soaked up the sexual excess energy men had just like masturbation to internet porn does today. A higher percentage of women were prostitutes and also more wifely material than now. a higher percentage of women are harridans and sluts today. I advocate learning GAME because as Roosh once said, if you go to whores and run out of money you get no sex whereas if you have enough GAME and are broke you still have the possibility to get sex. However, most men will never be adequate enough to GAME women well enough to satisfy their sexual desires as Heartiste once said. Therefore no man should support prostitution prohibition nor negatively stigmatizemen who visit prostitutes no matter how how high or low he is in the sexual hierarchy and no matter how he feels about visiting prostitutes personally. However men get sex from women who volunteer sex to men will go a long way to breaking the misandry we have today.

One guy doing the right thing will do nothing to change the culture. One man can, but as a real leader, not someone who “leads by example”.. The problem is finding a man who is both of high calibre competence wise, with both good intentions and the wisdom to know what is genuinely good, enough humility to not let his success turn into delusional narcissism and the ruthlessness necessary to do what must be done. History has produced a wealth of men with some of these attributes, but pretty much none with all of them. The last two who came close (Lenin and Hitler) were complete disasters.

Work to get Title VII of the 1965 Civil Rights Act declared unconstitutional on the grounds that discrimination based on gender is and always has been a state issue, and unlike racial discrimination is essential to a society’s long term survival.

2) But only if you picked a 9 or 10 with at least an above average IQ. I am talking native smarts, not edumacation – 10s don’t usually find education all that attractive because they have other options.

So assume IQ and native smarts are uncorrelated – or even positively correlated. (Social pressures or lack thereof will make 9-10s appear dumber than they are). Various good-health issues might provide positive correlation.

Thus, settle for maybe an 8 in the top decile of IQ, and breed like rabbits.
.
Thor

As long as your IQ doesn’t get in your way, and as long as you stay an unmedicated non-depressed human. Higher IQ folk can tend towards depression. Especially red pill higher IQ folk, I’ll warrant. You’ve had a little too much to think, and now the hangover. Stay strong.

Take care of your shit, Find like minded men, back each other up using reason, good will, and guts.

Masculine self sacrifivpce is an incredibly powerful force. Pur problem is that we offered it to the unworthy – country, town, or masons (dont join them, they are pathetic tools). Be a high value man woth honor instead, and find others.

I don’t believe there’s an antidote for the decay. Far too many have been infected with moral syphilis, i.e., liberalism … it’s ubiquitous, the infection has metastasized and seized the West’s lymph nodes.

Lol, this blog makes me sad. I mean, it’s good to find out about the truth while I’m still relatively young I guess. But, in my mid-20’s, I feel like I’ve already wasted some valuable years as a beta tool.

“When women are in the minority, the sexual marketplace conforms to their preferences: committed relationships, widespread virginity, faithful partners, and early marriage.”

Hmmm…precisely the outcome of the “one child” policy in China. The same descriptors could be used to describe a society, at the individual family level, that is trending upwards. This makes me wonder if the next couple of generations will see China well and truly take off, as the globe’s leading society.

Hard to agree, Sat’n, look at the impossibilty of an average guy, just a regular Kaseem, scoring casual sex in Middle Eastern cultures. Now, those poor devils live in a real supply side bear market and it’s been that way since the 7th century. Don’t see them “taking off to lead the globe.”

And have already contributed mightily to undermining at least 2 formerly global empires, with the third well on the way.

Remember, the period during which the West became the prominent power, the lot of the average Joe was pretty much as it is for Kaseem today. America today is just coasting along on the coattails of those achievements.

It’s not coincidental that every religion with staying power past a few generations feature cautionary tales of how Sodom and Gomorrah went under; rather than of how the excess “prudishness” of [fill in the blank] caused their decline. Progressivism vs. Islam will be no different.

I’ve noticed, at least among married women with sons (sure to be an ever diminishing part of the population thanks to current policies) that as their sons come of age they are actually starting to get what the world is like. When you’re trying to get yourself some grandchildren and watching what your son has to put up with to produce one you finally cut through a lot of the crap. It is interesting to see these 60s and 70s equality fighters hating the society they created.

My mom hit the roof when my brother started dating bitchy feminist career women, ranting constantly about how girls in our generation are going to be worthless as wives and mothers, and actively working to push him into relationships with “better” girls. Now that he’s married to a woman who’s pushing 35 and has told the family that they’re unlikely to give her any natural grandchildren, mom’s conversations with me have started to shift away the “enjoy your twenties, don’t worry about getting married right now” to “you should move to Texas, there are lots of nice boys here who’d make great fathers.”

It’s probably too late for both of us, though. Which is unfortunate. I won’t make that same mistake with any kids I’m lucky enough to have – male or female.

She probably sees the detestable qualities she possessed as a young woman, only 10 fold due to an environment that fosters such qualities in prospective daughter in laws. Removed from her untouchable youthful ego, and swayed by her innate jealousy for an other woman’s youth, she feels the full weight of her decisions.

Also, she is likely housing her 28 year old son, who is completely deincentivized to do more than work part time, go out on weekends, and bring the young women she detests home to her basement. She must realize that in her time, he would be supporting a wife and have a child already.

I’m way too lay to read all that so I just skimmed parts and saw this bit:

“The male who beds multiple women is enjoying life quite a bit, and so he may not notice or mind the fact that his educational and occupational advancement is vaguely hampered by all the laws and policies that push women ahead of him. After all, one key reason he wanted that advancement was to get sex”

This is pretty much it. Did women think we WANTED to kiss the boss’ ass and slave away working overtime stressed out begging for scraps all the way up the corporate ladder just for the fun of it? I literally know a guy who’s halfway through med school not because he likes it but because he thought it’d make him seem like good marriage material and he could get a girlfriend lol the guy is going to waste like 7+ years of his 20s and be in debt like crazy and doing a job he doesn’t care about and will still probably be single and alone. Victim of social conditioning.

Now that I can get sex outside of marriage easily, and marriage is a massive financial/legal bear trap for a guy to wander into, all I have to do is take care of myself and enjoy life. So I work as little as possible to cover funding my fairly inexpensive lifestyle and spend my time having fun.

When I think back to legit girlfriends I’ve had in my early dating days and how much money I blew dating them (going for dinners and renting movies and shit that even if we paid 50/50 I wouldn’t have spent money on in the first place if it was just me), its ridiculous. My living expenses for just myself are ridiculously low.

Hell even to raise kids and shit, she’s got the 6 figure job, she can pay for all that lol

This whole thing is really a big case of: “Well duh, what did you THINK was going to happen?” lol

Is a dysfunctional frat star going to become the alpha CEO of his father’s generation? Fuck no- by modern definition, a guy who aspires to be CEO is playing by different rules today, aka beta.

There is a chasm between the old alpha, CEO and business owner, and the new alpha, Zyzz-like douchebag frat star Flea-like reject. This would definietly explain the reason why there is a “reputation” assigned to the younger generation that keeps the old guard from electing them into positions of power.

The age of Bill Clintons and Ronald Reagans is over. In fact, they are now guilty of being beta in the modern man’s point of view. Although it might be absolutist, men today are having a dilemma of conscience. Everyone before him seems too beta to respect. The only remaining option is to respect the sexually effective: the Tucker Maxes of the world.

I don’t think it’s improbable that he derived some of his ideas from these very sources, although he could never name them. I also found notable that in the excerpt he mostly cites his own papers as sources.

As much as I agree with a lot of what Baumeister has written, I do find it a little simplistic to reduce all male motivations to just sex. It does the male gender a big disservice (and somewhat insulting) to reduce all of them to mindless, sex obsessed machines whose sole purpose or programming is to obtain sex. Isn’t this what feminists assert all along ? We need to control men because they are nothing more that sex beasts ?
The motivations for building societys and civilizations is pretty much survival or conquest or control over the things that would destroy man and womankind. What I find admirable in men is their refusal to be victims of nature or circumstances and will fight to survive using a combination of will, brawn and intelligence and creativity. Why improve weapons and military strategy ? To get sex or to avoid being slaughtered at the hands of avowed enemies ? Why build dams and irrigation systems ? To get sex or to avoid starvation at the hands of “mother” nature ? Why improve knowledge of biology and science to create better medicines ? To get sex or to avoid suffering the pain, incapacitiation and indignity of disease ? Like I say, no man has ever died from a lack of sex, but they sure have died from war, disease, starvation, predation by bigger stronger animals, natural disasters and of course, a lack of status amongst their male peers. Unlike women who turn on each other in the face of threats, fighting amongst themselves for the last scraps of food or for acceptance by male conquerers, men at least can band together and say There must be a better way than this. This is what men are admired for and they will come into their own once again when civilization collapses all around us.

You refute your own premise. It goes without saying that the prime directive is survival, as without it, nothing else is possible, including sex. But once survival is taken care, as it largely is for most of us living in the first world, what’s left?

“It does the male gender a big disservice (and somewhat insulting) to reduce all of them to mindless, sex obsessed machines whose sole purpose or programming is to obtain sex. Isn’t this what feminists assert all along?”

Yes, this is what feminists claim all along. I didn’t bother to read Baumeister’s paper because his idea of a marketplace where women sell sex and men “buy” it is so repulsive to me that I don’t give a shit what this person has to say. I’m sure his female co-author is a closet feminist and man-hater (aren’t all psychologists feminists anyway?). According to Baumeister, men are apparently not able to fall in love with the woman they sleep nor with any potential children they could have. I mean, these selfish and retarded teenagers and sex-addicts certainly do exist, but grown-up men are much more careful about who are they going to sleep with. They know that just like women, they are selling their bodies (and souls and their whole lives) and not only … “commitment”? money? (I didn’t read the paper so I have no idea what men give to women who give them sex) He’s also completely wrong about men wanting sex more than women do. He’s probably comparing undesirable males with desirable females. If we compared alpha males and aging feminists, they wouldn’t have sex with each other either but from very different reasons. In an off-topic conclusion, SEX=LOVE and women want it just as much as men do.

One of the things lost in the “grand bargain” was the loss of male-only (and female-only) spheres, is a place for the betas (and their female corollary) to work-out their stuff in private, and mature to full adulthood (and develop morals, skills, good habits, etc.) in a non-sexually charged environment.

We don’t need no more writings. It’s time to go out and face the shitstorm. Those of you with wit, charisma, and knowledge should get out there and start shouting the truth. History is not made by books, it’s mostly made by men and personalities.

We can have all those brilliant discussions eviscerating feminism and lies, but none of this will matter because these are just words. Humans don’t communicate only with words, they also communicate with body language and frame control and passing shit tests. Y’all should have understood this by now.

Alright. I’ll start with a defence perimeter, some armaments, and a temporary internment camp or two. You and rectal blood J over there are welcome if things on the outside get too “primitive”. Positive things.

My point is that we are born as we are, and we can improve inside those limitations, and we should do that, whatever race we are.

I made no statement that one race was better than the other. All can make their own assessment of that for themselves. As for “Whites should disappear”… let’s just say that I believe exactly the opposite of that.

Like a lot of sociologists examining the “sexual marketplace”, they have no clue how attraction really works or how sex is really “exchanged” in the market.

Problems with their theory include: 1) endowing female sexuality with value and treating male sexuality as relatively worthless, 2) assuming that men must offer women other resources (“money, material gifts, respect, love, time, affection, or commitment”) in exchange for sex, and ignoring “game”.

There is a sexual marketplace and its dynamics can be studied and subjected to economic analysis. The authors are just completely off in their understanding of how the market actually works.

What causes sexual starvation for the majority of men (ie, betas), is the encouragement of unconstrained female sexuality. Men suffer when women are allowed to sleep around. Women who are allowed to get sex anywhere and everywhere they want it, with few societal restrictions, don’t go for every man they see, but only the “alphas”, or men with perceived high social value. Put hundred women in a room with a hundred men, and most of the women are going to want to sleep with the same few men, and the ones that don’t get to go home with one of those two or three guys aren’t going to settle for any of the “lesser” guys who are left. We’d rather not have sex than have it with a male of perceived normal, boring, “low” status. Doesn’t do anything for us. So a few men get to enjoy a surplus of sex while the rest are left with nothing specifically because women are told to behave like sluts.

It’s not about an increase, but a decrease, in “fear-based relationships” (which I choose here to define as relationships where there are consequences for women cheating on her man and rewards for being loyal.) Cuckold prevention is essential for healthy relationships, and on a macro level, for civilized sexual exchange for the greatest number of people. Shaming – or more accurately, incentivizing – women into keeping their legs shut against casual sexual encounters, and in staying devoted to one man, is what keeps sexual starvation at bay for everybody.

“Incentivizing” — that’s brilliant. Shall we pay you for being chaste as well? We subsidize your wantonness, now we must subsidize your chastity. And people ask me why I want to go live in the fucking woods.

Old days, better folk, the incentive to chastity was avoidance of the whip, the fist, the road away from the village, or the grave.

Women are responsible for labeling each other sluts and whores. It was when they collectively stopped doing it that it became destigmatized. Men still do it, but typically only with other men. Women have a whole lexicon including “slut-shaming” “gender privilege” to rationalize any embarrassment they might encounter.
What needs to happen is for men to stop committing to women whose sexually histories they find repellent and have to compartmentalize away in their minds. They have to learn how to recognize the behavior of a loose woman and act accordingly.

There is a biblical saying that wherever your treasure might be, there will your heart also be.

Where you dump your sperm is the type of woman you’ll end up marrying, even if she hides it very well or lacks experience until she learns what makes you tick.

So if your taste is loyal women who are already well trained by having good parents, then don’t waste your life chasing the broken. If you do, you’re thinking like a chick who thinks she’ll chase bad boys until she’s 30-something and then all of a sudden be okay with a “nice guy”. People are not interchangeable anyway. Get the decent girl while you have the chance and let the players play. Besides, if she’s really cool, then she’ll allow you some discreet and careful dalliances for your ego so you can return home appreciating what you have.

I have no experience being a whore, but plenty of experience being loyal and okay with a man being a man. Funny thing happens when you prove to a guy with testicles that you’re there for him no matter what. Other women cease to be a threat.

The boundaries of any relationship are determined by the party least interested.

Most of our limitations are self-imposed.

***

All you betas out there who whine about no quality poon in your area need to find a new area.
Clean yourself up; if your fingernails are ratty, we think of one thing: that might be okay to shake hands, but you’re gonna tear up my cooter with those hangnails. Well, at least those of us worth working for do.
Eat pussy like you’re getting paid to.

For someone who scored so low on your dating rating, I sure do have a lot of men hitting me up all the time. I’m no feminazi either. I love men, and I’m never cruel to the ones who have no shot. I may be a bitch but I’m no asshole.

I just found this blog through a link. I love it; insight into a man’s mind who’s not trying to game me. Current knowledge to be used for future situations.

For purely anthropological purposes, I have watched some videos on you porn of what simply has to be amateurs (you can tell) at these male stripper shows. The women do all kinds of things to the male strippers and their friends cheer them on.

The stuff they do runs the gambit with one single exception you can guess. I don’t think that men could do this in front of each other. Not many men could or would want to.

There might be a little celebrity worship going on — more like a reflex — for any male on a stage performing even if it’s not exactly Elvis.

What, most guys **LIKE** sharing women with other guys? Heck no, they kill over exclusive access to women. Its one of the most common motives for murder. Rather, guys don’t invest a rat’s ass in most women because they view them as past promiscuous (likely, TRUE) and likely unfaithful (also, likely, TRUE). Thus women will get approaching zero on average male resources, and as men simply lay about and be “sexy” (see Detroit or West Africa) any resources to be claimed will amount to the equivalent of “grillz” or expensive sneakers.

I realize it’s become quite fashionable to attack Africa on this blog but any assertion that divorce rates are higher (and marriage rates lower) in Africa is based on serious delusions and ignorance.

I’m African, born and raised, so I know of what I speak. African marriage rates are very high, and divorce rates, while increasing due to Western exposure, are much lower than they are in the West. Divorce rates are currently lower in Africa than they have been in the West during the last 100 years.

High marriage rates (and low divorce rates) are prevalent across all social strata. A growing exception exists among Africans who have lived in the West.

Single motherhood is extremely rare in Africa; and, where it occurs, considered shameful and treated as a disgrace to the single mother and her family.

The work ethic is high; malignancy is low; education is valued; and intact nuclear families are the norm. Female hypergamy is tamed.

Where polygamy is legal, it is rare; it’s much less common than the rotating polyandry endemic to Western society. And, any adverse effects of polygamy are much less damaging to society than the scourge of single motherhood which is celebrated, massaged, assuaged, and elevated in the West.

Despite their humble backgrounds, Africans in America value education, strive mightily for success, and are the true model minority. FYI, Nigerian Americans (not Chinese Americans) have the highest educational attainment in the U.S. Over a quarter of Nigerians in the U.S. have masters degrees and almost all have college degrees. University education is expected except in cases of extreme poverty. And not the cheesy stuff (like “Gender Studies”); STEM, Medicine, Law, etc.

Africa is poor but the African family is strong; and fathers raise their sons and daughters. And, Africans despise feminism a heck of a lot more than you apparently do.

Interesting. My only objection is the method of taking immigrants – from any contry or continent – to wealthy Western countries, and using these immigrants as representative. They are NOT. The statistical differences between immigrant to, say, the US from country X and the people still living in country X are large and varying by what you put in for X. Expect immigrants from far away to be a more selective cut than immigrants from nearby countries. Etc.

No, Greg Eliot’s arrow went wide of the mark, because as usual Greg Eliot doesn’t address facts. He merely repeats, echo chamber like, the same preconceptions that gets him applause from grovellers like you.

If you’d click on that link, you’d see Bobby’s telling the truth about low African divorce rates. They’re a hell of a lot better than America’s.

The reason AIDS is so bad in Africa is that many of the men there have multiple long term partners. While looking good on paper, these men who travel to find daily bread typically have a wife back home and a girl friend or two where they live and work. This has led to women becoming infected with the virus, somehting you really don’t see in the West. And through the women, the children become infected. Here is is primarialy buffos and intervenious drug users. In some countries, the infection rate is near 25%. That pretty much speaks for its self.

Why is it that you people are so against doctored statistics and misinformation when feminists suppress information on hormones in voting or the sexual market, but then run back under Mama Mass Media’s skirt when it comes to Africa?

The reason Africans, despite having a fair number if indigenous warrior Goddesses, are against feminism is not just because it makes no sense in principle. It’s because of the devastation they’ve brought to the continent in real ways.

Currently, they’re encouraging circumcision to protect the women, and trying to enforce immunizations for, of all things, diarrhea, partly to get a record to better enforce circumcision. It’s save the women and children, let us inject you with a new virus and harvest stem cells.

They run back under Mama Mass Media’s skirt because for at least the past 40-50 years or so, pop culture (=mass media) has been head over ass in love with anything ‘Black’ or African and you all know it. And Thor is correct. The Nigerian students who excel abroad are the teeny tiny tip of a huge iceberg of inter-tribal warfare, genocide and disease and people who drive used Toyota trucks through the stone age while wielding Kalashnikov machine guns.

Wanna know the cure for AIDS? Stop sodomy. Ever notice how straight men never get HIV unless they are drug users? Straight women get it though, guess they are having too much anal sex with gay dudes/bisexual men.

Not exactly. AIDS can be transmitted from a man to a woman
vaginally. Not as likely as anally, but it happens, especially
if the woman is having her period or has some other
bleeding problem. The reverse is rare.

Wolfie, for some reason, Africans are not feeling this “love”. It’s done in the way of a back handed compliment, and whatever money that has been made from it has funded more tainted immunizations, stem cell harvesting, and perverted priests.

A, yes. AIDS. Peeling away the propaganda, the following facts are
true, like it or not:

In the West, infection rates in heterosexual (non-anal) sex is very low.

In particular, the infection rate from women to men is epdemiologically
insignificant (but this is NOT a personal guarantee).

Thus, in the West (i.e. industrial countries, this includes Japan but
maybe not China which is special in this respect), AIDS infection occurs
primarily among IV drug users, secondarily (these people are smarter
and more careful) among male homosexuals.

In Africa, the above rules do not apply. Why?

Two things

1) A large proportion of the population are already infected by various
venerial diseases, such as syphilis, gonorhea, chancroid (ulcus molle) and other diseases, causing open sores.

2) A large proportion of the female population have been genitally mutillated, and thus tend to bleed during intercourse.

Nefarious YT infected Africans with bad injections to make the otherwise chaste and stalwart darker Puritans promiscuous as chimps, to the point of raping babies, as an equal opportunity measure for the all educated white men raping babies over here.

Was that from Afrocentrism 210 or 330? It was certainly one of the (ahem) advanced courses, such as they are… if memory serves, level 101 didn’t get around to science, it merely covered history.

The tests used to detect HIV are bad. They are basically based on detecting strong immune-deficience, which can be caused by A LOT of diseases. Most of the people who are positive to these tests in Africa suffer from completely different diseases. This mass of African people is used to sensitise the mass Western population to take care and respect homosexuals, junkies, and assholes from the media/journalism industry, who, objectively, got there by THEIR OWN fault.

There is probably no epidemic of AIDS whatsoever in Africa. But there is a metric ton of other diseases there. Cure them, and the HIV will magically disappear.

@Nicole – Africans (in Africa) are not feeling the love because most African countries don’t have enough natural resources (read:oil) for any really large scale western involvement. As opposed to the Middle East. We send them token money – which is summarily swallowed up by various tribal warlords aka ‘the local governments’ – some food aid (ditto), and, if things go REALLY bad, the occasional helicopter with a few Marines/Foreign Legionnaires, erm, ‘technical advisors’. They would feel the love if they could watch US/European TV, read western newsprint, books, etc.

Exhausted the nesting depth.
@bob
“The tests used to detect HIV are bad. They are basically based on detecting strong immune-deficience, which can be caused by A LOT of diseases. Most of the people who are positive to these tests in Africa suffer from completely different diseases. This mass of African people is used to sensitise the mass Western population to take care and respect homosexuals, junkies, and assholes from the media/journalism industry, who, objectively, got there by THEIR OWN fault.

There is probably no epidemic of AIDS whatsoever in Africa. But there is a metric ton of other diseases there. Cure them, and the HIV will magically disappear.”

No. You test for AIDS by testing for the antibodies for AIDS, this is the easiest way to do it. And Yes, there is an epidemic in Africa.

Did it ever occur to you that you’re once again being manipulated? Also, how is your being manipulated by the media, funded mostly by people who look like you, Black people’s fault? If you’re blaming Black people for the disappearance of your illusory “privilege”, instead of the people who created that illusion and then try to sell you a new or adjusted one, aren’t you just being a tool?

The politically incorrect but true version is that those blacks who were brought here (in my case, the Caribbean) in chains were mostly the ones that the village elders thought were expendable, or more valuable as a cash crop than as members of the tribe. Whereas recently arrived Blacks from Africa are self-picked from at or near the top of the pile.

Yes, and I’ve often said that it was no coincidence that the first black U.S. president comes from such a top-of-the-pile lineage, devoid of slavery. This speaks volumes about that particular four-hundred-year-old evil. It’s the curse that keeps on cursing.

Yes, and I’ve often said that it was no coincidence that the first black U.S. president comes from such a top-of-the-pile lineage, devoid of slavery. This speaks volumes about that particular four-hundred-year-old evil. It’s the curse that keeps on cursing.

LOOLOLLZZLZOOOOOLLZLZLZLOOOOLLL

Some teenaged white imbued-with-liberal-bushwa world fellow traveler slut bangs an older Kenyan smooth-talker, whose feets don’t fail him thereafter, the high yellow spawn of which gets dumped into the laps of its white bread Midwest American grandparents = top-of-the-pile black (looozlzlooslsl) lineage.

Congratulations, alphie… this is a level of thought inanity even I couldn’t have imagined possible… baring a head wound in its purveyor.

Yes, Obama’s mother spent her life learing about non-white culture, and having sex with non-white guys — she was definitely the type of exploratory “race-betraying” woman that you guys looove to hate. But that’s not my point.

Apparently Obama’s dad was rather brilliant. He was the smartest guy in any room. And he didn’t have slavery in his family history. THAT WAS MY POINT — that the history of slavery handicaps most of its descendants in millions of subtle and not-so-subtle ways that you and I, as white men, can’t even begin to fathom. It’s no coincidence that the first “black” president didn’t have to deal with that, growing up in Indonesia and Hawaii, far from these locales, and with a dad (even an absent one) who felt similarly unrestrained.

Jason, it’s pretty easy to fathom if you consider that the better part of Europeans were slaves, serfs, and other brands of underclass.

It is a myth that both White and Black people fall for…that Europe was some kind of heaven on Earth where everybody got along, nobody starved, nobody was unjustly imprisoned, and everybody was bloodthirsty rich people who rained down on Africa from greed.

“the history of slavery handicaps”. Well maybe, But the other, unspeakable, factor is genetics. Slaves were typically drawn from at or near the bottom of the pile in Africa. Modern black immigrants, like Obama Sr, were and are drawn from at or near the top of the pile.

Can someone really adress Bobby’s points? Because the WN snarks are getting tiresome, just like leftists when they’re cornered.

My guess is that bobby’s right and Africa has a strong family structure, but it’s relatively recent. Niggers needed the moral guidance of christianism and islam to overcome their r-selected id. Even in the US, they reverted back to their grotesque savagery partly because feminists menstruated all over spirituality.

2 centuries of K-selection are obviously not enough to significantly raise the average IQ. Niggers are still only 10 points smarter than dogs.

West Africa in particular has a poor social structure, rotating polyandry is the norm there, as has been well documented. To avoid being moderated, no links, I’m sure you can find it yourself. West African norms of family means single woman, kids by different fathers. This is also the norm in South Africa witness the many, many articles about it in that hard right Financial Times. Jacob Zuma just married his fifth wife or so, thirty years younger.

First off you are partially correct, but please remember that Africa is not uniform. My guess is you are talking about West Subsaharan Africa or Congoid Africa (ethiopians and sudanese are radically different from Nigerians and the like). By the way I think the first commenter is the one closest to the truth.

Modern african family structure is fairly recent, thanks to the Christendom of yore and Islam influence. Before that, matriarchy was the model in most Subsaharan West African Societies.

Recently on BBC World News America: Government soldiers in NE Nigeria rounded up men in several villages and shot an apparently random number. No information as to whether this was poltically motivated, genocide or just random violence.

Though cultures vary throughout the continent, a negligible few were ever any flavor of matriarchal. Ever. There was not enough isolation for any to convince themselves that men should assume a lesser place in the society. I think some of you are confusing matrilineal with matriarchal. Even in that, you’re talking thousands of years ago.

The Yoruba kingdom was defined by its *father* and his *sons* not any of their wives.

I guess you are the who should open your eyes…Sub-saharian Africa HAS NEVER been Christian except for small pockets and unfortunately Christianity abolished itself in the West so I don’t think many more missionaries of REAL CHRISTIANISM will show up (Protestantism is not real christianism by the way but that´s another story).

On the other hand the regions where they are returning to the ancestral practices are just the ones where cannibalism and baby raping in search of AIDS cure takes place. Enjoy.

JM, Africans are returning to their ancestral faiths because Christians who don’t practice what they preach, and Muslims who do, are the ones perpetrating most of the pederasty, and most responsible for the spread of AIDS. By the way, for the same reason, a growing number are now and becoming atheist.

You should really stop professing to men’s rights and then sucking feminist ass when it suits you. The stupidity of a few charlatans in South Africa doesn’t negate the hundreds of years of filth and degradation in the name of “God”.

Well I don’t know what feminist ass I am supposedly sucking but it couldn´t be bigger than the one you are sucking. How are Christians and Muslims spreading AIDS besides being promiscuous and following the pattern of the decadent West and heathen Africa. Whether you like it or not most of Africa HAS NEVER BEING Christian in any meaningful way, partly because English, Belgian French administrations weren’t concerned at all with christianization of those lands and the time for a real European culture infusion was not enough.

Slavery was not right but as far as I know from historical resources it was never done in the name of God and most of the degradation of it came from the very Africans who sold their kinsmen as slaves to the Europeans and Arabs that showed up there. Real colonization and exploration of the dark continent didn´t start until late 18th century. Spaniards, Englishmen, Jews and Portuguese didn´t broke into those jungles and brought those slaves on their own. Most slaves were sold to Europeans by the very Africans.

JM, first of all, you have to understand that most Arabs in Africa have dark skin. An outsider would not be able to tell the difference unless they were very familiar with the cultures. That indigenous Africans following their indigenous faiths were responsible for the bulk of early chattel slavery is simply not true. Arabs had a thriving slave trade in which most slaves were bred, not captured, long before the first European bought the first slave from them.

Christian Africans sold Africans who were practicing their indigenous faiths to get rid of them. Very few were able to escape that, and one of the ways some did was by allowing parts of their territory to be used as storage and transport. Of those whose line is unbroken, they said then and still say that they had no idea what was in store for those slaves, or how depopulation would affect their cultures. Among those slaves were potential and actual warriors who could have served them well in rebellion against Christian and Muslim invaders.

So indeed, Africans did sell Africans, but indigenous believing ones sold far fewer into slavery than some would like to believe. Most of the slave trade in Africa was orchestrated by Muslims, with Christians at a close second.

They did also use the religions to justify their actions and as a brainwashing tool. To this day, there are what we like to call Negropean Americans saying that even though slavery was bad, at least they brought us Jesus. The day one of my parents said this was the day I was convinced that Vodun was the way for me to go.

Oh, and another thing, Heathens are from European belief systems. You would do well to learn what your own Ancestors believed so you have some idea what was stolen from you in the name of “God”.

I have to wonder why white people call black people niggers? Have you ever actually considered why? You must know it probably is not pleasant to them when you are hostile. People try to act tough, but most people don’t like being hated , especially by someone they’ve never even met. .

What purpose does it serve? To express your anger? To prove you are not afraid of someone who you perceive as an enemy? Why hurt people unnecessarily? What is your goal in this?

I actually respect an enemy who will state his or her position to the face. That’s an invitation to get darwinian and test their actual fitness. I have to admire one with the confidence to go on and put their ass on the line for their beliefs, no matter how misguided.

On the internet though, it’s just the flailing of the butt hurt. They didn’t get whatever gadget they wanted for Christmas, so it’s Black people’s fault…the lazy and weak crying out because they or their parents didn’t have the foresight to sacrifice a bit to buy some land, live more communally in the family, and be less invested in the infrastructure.

It’s the same kind of butt hurt many Black people who sold their souls express when it’s time to pay up. It’s White people’s fault instead of their fault for buying an iPad instead of precious metals.

Negro is the Spanish word for the color black, which in English sounds like nee-grow and got ebonicized by Black pople speaking English into ‘niggah’.
They came up with that themselves and it is still (Very) widely used by them today. Listen to any rap/hip-hop tune and you’ll hear the word at least a half dozen times within 3 minutes.

“This mass of African people is used to sensitise the mass Western population to take care and respect homosexuals, junkies, and assholes from the media/journalism industry, who, objectively, got there by THEIR OWN fault.”
—-

Spoken like a true Jew fighter. And besides, if aids is such a scourge in Africa, why is the DNSA so empty?

The african american community has been utterly wrecked by feminist leaning social policies. From welfare, to the family courts, to the insane drug laws, and the nature of the criminal court (good luck getting a job with a criminal record of any kind), down to the endless feminist bullshit their women are fed, the AA male has practically no chance at all.

When slavery first ended, they actually had a stronger marriage rate than whites. After the leftists (fascist and communist) got through with them, they cannot be called a community any more. Now they are a slave population.

This paper by Baumeister doesn’t jive with work the began with Marcia Guttentag which culminated in “Sex and the Society” after her death, which predicts that women come into power when there are more women than men.

When there are more men, and men have power, marriage is stable and women are more economically dependent and the birth rate is sustainable. Men, on the whole, want marriage. Women, on the whole, say they want marriage, but since it’s pointless to ask them what they want we can instead look at their actions: Marriage declines and the birthrate collapses.

It may be semantics, but I don’t really see how anyone can conclude that women desire marriage more than men. Men do desire sex more than women do, sure, but most men want plentiful sex from a woman who did not freely give that sex away to others, which is more likely to come from a society based around marriage as it used to be, which is marriage as none of us has ever known it.

For the male sexual imperative, marriage is ideal. For women, marriage is “oppressive” because it forces them to settle before they’ve had time to “find themselves”. Women, despite planning their marriage from the time they’re children and fantasizing about it obsessively, do not actually desire marriage more than men.

I mean, think about it: Even after marriage became a joke that essentially trapped them into a financial, sexual, and emotional prison (for a not insignificant portion of husbands), men STILL want to get married. Yet when marriage was a great institution for women, they called it oppressive and moved on to become educated and acquired careers and so on.

Furthermore, how can men have “more power” while the minority in society? There are now more voting-aged women than men, there are more institutions promoting women over men, more women earning degrees and so on. And yet we’re supposed to believe that under these circumstances, men have more power? That’s a load of crap.

They had a lot of good points, but besides relying on baseless stereotypes, I’m not sure how they managed to come to that illogical conclusion.

Correction, “Sex and the Society” does not predict that women come into power when there are more women. I should have said “implies” instead of “predicts”. I think this whole “men have more power than women when there are more women than men” is really just a way of pushing blame off of women for the decline of society since feminism.

For women, marriage is “oppressive” because it forces them to settle before they’ve had time to “find themselves”.

I think this is the result of cultural indoctrination. Time used to be that a woman defined herself by her family relationships and her place in her community, not by some stupid corporate job or how many countries she had stamped in her passport.

Hypergamy aside, a big part of the problem I think you see in women today is that the things that little girls and young women are told they should want are directly at odds with the things they instinctively want. Trying to destroy your inborn inclinations for the sake of a political correct personal narrative is extremely mentally and emotionally destructive.

Society medicates little boys who act up in class because they want to go outside and play. Society brainwashes little girls by taking away their dolls and playhouses and telling them to find meaning in a paycheck instead. Same thing.

Maybe I don’t hang around with the right people, but I don’t know ANYbody, male or female, who finds meaning in paychecks. All the women I know love talking about the domestic arts, even the ones with jobs.

Sure blame it on the “Cultural Indoctrination” but examples after examples have shown that the part which says

“For women, marriage is “oppressive” because it forces them to settle before they’ve had time to “find themselves”.

truly rings correct, not only you are shifting the blame on the culture today (Like feminist have done it) but you seem to think that there is “A War on Women” going on right now, Funny part is you think that this war is being waged by feminist against women but we all know that is just not the case.

But oh well keep dreaming, prince charming is still waiting in the shadows.

“Women” are not homogenous. For most women, in most of history, marriage is/was in no way “oppressive”, as it was all that stood between her and her kids.

But, as Baumeister points out, most women care mainly about close 1-1 relationships. Not society building. They therefore don’t speak out, or otherwise engage in society shaping behavior, since whatever goes on outside their little cocoon is rather unimportant to them. BUT, for the 1-5% of bulldykes, regardless of sexual orientation, things are different. They do speak out. And, unlike feminine women, they do compete head on with men for access to power positions. Including positions in front of cameras and behind mikes. Which, when you enter an age of mass communication, can easily lead them to be seen as speaking for all of womenhood. They are, after all, 100% of women who actually speak about gender relations.

And if you are a bulldyke by constitution, traditional marriage may well seem oppressive.

Hmm Maybe there are “Some” womyn but the rest of the majority doesn’t shape in with your arguments and beside it is clear that there is a massive following of feminist even today, SO YOU”RE WRONG.

But i like this bit of yours’

>And if you are a bulldyke by constitution, traditional marriage may well seem oppressive.

I dont know what you meant by that but if you want to know my sex kindly say so, “Male” yes the oppressive one. For me majority of American women are Bulldykes, there is no shortage of this gender, DC is the best place to find them.

” Women, despite planning their marriage from the time they’re children and fantasizing about it obsessively, do not actually desire marriage more than men.”
Modern women planned their weddings from an early age, not their marriages. Few girls play in plastic kitchens with dollies anymore. They play Barbie, an alpha female with plenty of accompanying products and careers. They imagine the day in which they are the perceived pinnacle of desirability, dressed up like a princess, and are now running up 30k in debt at the beginning of their marriage to fulfill this fantasy… too emotionally stunted and selfish to say no to their inner child.

Men will set themselves up for a “marriage” even while single. How many single women do you know who own a house? Have savings? I know young men who make only 40k and own homes.The same amount of women rent apartments for a 3rd of their income every month, pursue degrees with only in group status and no payout, and spend disposable income on increasing status through fashion and beauty.

This isn’t just about financial responsibility. Saving is inherently about provisioning for successful reproduction. It almost seems like modern men are still more connected to this primal need than women, even if their prospects of fulfilling it are dwindling.

Spending on beauty and fashion, rather than saving!?
In many instances, this is quite rational. If it leads to landing a reasonably well-off husband, it will have been worth it. Otherwise not. You takes your chances and you places your bets…

They want marriage allright, but only to the incredibly wealthy, stunningly handsome brain surgeon who is also a Navy test pilot and moonlights as a missionary in Africa while managing his stock options via palm pilot (ipod, ipad, icrap, whatever). Extra points if he’s 10-20 years younger than her. The fact that he must be EXTRA TALL goes without saying. And he has to be faithful to a fault and ‘forgive’ her little innocent angel ‘mistakes’ with the pool boy. In other words, a ‘Good Man’.

Wolfie – you are correct. I never believed it until I witnessed my ex fall for a fella online who professed to be everything you just listed. The scam went on for months, she agreed to marry him, sight unseen, quit her job…..the whole nine yards……and he never showed up. One day his online footprint simply vanished, along with his cell phone number. Boy did she have egg on her face. She hates me to this day for my all knowing, shit eating grin about that. I mean, after all, what man doesn’t love seeing that happen to his bitchy ex-wife?

I don’t think Beta Males pushed the sexual revolution of 60s. Betas want to be married in their early 20s so the sexual access issue (ostensibly) is over. And they also want to have kids early because that makes them feel, and perhaps become, more alpha (in a good way).

I feel fortunate insofar as the whole 60’s thing only dealt me a glancing blow, but judging by everything I’ve witnessed, heard and read about it, pretty much everything 60’s-related was (and still is) driven by drugs.

I feel your pain but I really think you’re getting too depressed. It’s not everything so bad. Enjoy your life while you still can and don’t be so cynical! Why do you only read these unromantic, depressing articles?

ps – the picture of hitler you linked to on your twitter is scary and i can’t sleep now!

Dear Maya,
We’re trying to enjoy life.Since that simple endeavour is being made as difficult as possible at every frickin’ corner, we’re trying to find out why. Enter these unromantic, depressing articles. They explain why and make a TON of sense. As opposed to the pack of lies we were/are fed daily.

In my mid-60s, former Army officer, Vietnam vet, retired engineer. Been a married, starved AFC going on 30 years now. Took the red pill about a year ago as regards the cunning, insidious assaults on my sex, my race, my savings, my culture, our ecology. My grief at what is lost and cannot be regained runs deep, and as more is revealed, my disgust, anger, even hatred well up, hot, black, and visceral, from somewhere primitive within. I no longer trust my wife or most of my family, and am giving cold consideration to walking away, expatriating, hoarding some gold, starting fresh with the precious little time remaining. Am grateful for this forum.

You pegged my age…and well, yes, attractive fertile women still most definitely get my attention and, yes, I would like another kid (or two), actually.

As for your admonition, it took a long while (owing to initial awe and a slow brain), but once I grasped the colossal chicanery of the ZOG central banking system, careful disengagement seemed the next right thing to do.

You know what alphas do when going gets rough? We FIGHT. We don’t “migrate”.

Your true colors are showing, coward.

Aryan migrations set the stage for the greatest civilizations in the world, you illiterate punk.

Then again, there’s the well-known “white flight” of the modern era… because the only alternative is having the government send SWAT teams to gun down any white man who dares to stand and fight where he is right now.

Just once, I’d love to have you within arms reach… your true color would then show… as piss yellow.

Keep spouting off from the safety of your keyboard, you little shit… and enjoy your SWPL existence while it lasts.

Mr. K: I have assumed that the internet affords absolutely no privacy and that a competent jock or government snoop could ascertain one’s identity and location with minimal effort, no matter what moniker one uses. In my seventh decade, for better or worse, I have shed some of my proclivity to give a damn. Maybe I am rash idiot.

You’ve ingested the red pill, it takes awhile to run it’s course through your system. Sit down, take a moment to breathe. You sound like I used to. Now you can heal, it’s never too late, but whatever you do, don’t make any hasty decisions.

If Baumeister created a blog he could give Heartiste a run for his money, because the man knows his stuff.

The thing I never understand is why beta males even aspire to career success, period. The scraps of pussy you might get from career success aren’t worth the 60hr/wk grind in this short finite life of ours. And who could ever suffer the insult of being a celibate beta, working your ass off, only so that you can pay $$,$$$ in taxes every year so chicks can have birth control to slut it up with players, jocks, alphas, anyone except you.

This is a brilliant analysis of modern American society/economy. Keep up the good work. You are on the cutting-edge of real-life sociological study. There is no way that this type of truth would ever be studied in a Sociology program at any liberal college or university in the West. The truth is painful and hard to cope with. But it must be told, and it must be understood.

This is off topic, but here is an example of the hilarity that happens, on occasion, when your woman is not a native English speaker. I was reviewing a document the wife had written for work, and instead of writing “women seamstresses” she had written “women sewers.” I thought about letting it slide for laughs, but I decided it would be better for her professionally if she changed the wording. Ain’t I generous?

I read this and I see one of the bespectacled stickfigures from ‘Revenge of the Nerds’ rolling around the floor, kicking the walls in helpless frustration: “Why won’t they fuck me? I have a PhD!” Meanwhile, the captain of the Rugby team goes”‘Huh?” while lazily rolling off his 3rd cheerleader of the week.

My only criticism besides as others noted the not-seeing of female hypergamy and alphas, is that it was mostly WOMEN not men who wanted and got “free love,” and that impulse dates back to AT LEAST Mary Wollstonecroft (mother of Mary Wollstonecroft Shelley) and the French Aristocracy. Women on average benefit from a “free love market” because on average, people want to F*** them more, than men, on average.

Is it just me or are some others getting sick regarding all the whinning coming from the NE.? I mean, they were bloody fucking warned for over a week to stock-up on food, water, gasoline, and hollow-point ammo.
It is a disgrace, imho, what is being displayed. “ooohh, it is cold and my ipad is not working and the chinese free deliverey food source has me on hold and i think i am going to die!!!”
A real hurricane can pick a brick off the ground and send it at look at 150 mph.

Some talking points you all may find interesting, including some questions of my own.

It seems to be implied that life has been getting worse for beta males. Historically this is not so; consider civilizations like the Incas and before who were ruled by a despot having access to literally thousands of females. His chiefs would earn hundreds, their subordinates perhaps dozens, and so on down the hierarchy. At the bottom, you have say 80%+ of men without any available females. I think it’s fair to call these men the beta males. Their only chance of mating was to move up the ladder hierarchy and become a lowly chief who might get 3 women, and eventually a higher chief who would get a dozen, etc.

The point is that mating was run a giant ponzi-scheme, and failure to comply would result in death. Surely the switch to monogamy was beneficial to beta males.

I am interested in why exactly the switch to monogamy came about in the past. Did the betas collectively rise up in numbers and viva la revolution? One theory suggested by the book “The Red Queen” (very much recommended for readers of this blog) is that mating patterns adapted to living conditions in various ways. While in hunter-gatherer mode, what I’ll call “external success” (acquiring resources, such as food) had much more to do with luck, and due to rotting, these resources could not be stockpiled. So the male who had all the food one day would actually benefit by sharing with others, as another day he may have none. There was no consistent way to gain power and influence due to hoarding various resources. Hence no man could establish a harem and be as polygamous as he would like.

[By all means, please help me with my paraphrasing if I am butchering what the book says]

Come the agricultural revolution, polygamy came back in season. Grains and other farm food could be hoarded, thus giving some men disproportionate power and authority. With status and power, of course, comes mating opportunities.

The next idea I’m interested in is why we went back to monogamy. In Medieval times, such outright and obvious polygamy was uncommon. However, it existed in the form of rich barons being able to take young women to be “housemaids” (glorified concubines) from poor towns into their castles. Why was there any red tape, or perhaps an early form of political correctness? Peasant revolt, perhaps? Have beta males ever revolted?

The trend towards 1-to-1 matings continued, with strong power/political structures disintegrating. Perhaps democracy has something to do with it; sexually “fairer” nations may have been undergoing their own evolutionary cycles, and those nations with a more socially-enforced monogamy were able to better utilize the majority of men to produce goods, fight wars, and whatever else help a nation survive.

So we’re left with the present age. The view on this blog is certainly that America is in a dangerous downwards spiral. Even before one would happen upon the topics in this blog, they would likely draw the same conclusion. Now I haven’t read this blog much, but would you readers say this downfall began after the sexual revolution? Assuming the height of American dominance and prosperity were the 1950s (after a triumphant WW2) then the correlation would be there.

But it’s weird I mention prosperity because frankly that has only gone up, even if various sexual/social values have changed; it’s likely technology is on too much of an exponential upwards trend to be affected by marriage going down the drain and the rise of biased feminism. I guess the point I’m trying to make is that on a macro-scale, while marriage and perhaps monogamous relationships are getting worse, much of the rest of the world is doing just fine, and in fact always getting better.

While there are much “the world is going to hell” sentiment in some of the comments I’ve read on other posts, perhaps as history teaches us, we as a society are always evolving and getting better. A giant “collapse” of America is predicted which would go against that theory. But what nation, group, or ideology would take its place? And what would their sexual dynamics be like?

What about China? As much as we’ll throw manufacturing (and even a lot of the more basic engineering jobs) their way, China as a country has too much going against it. Massive political corruption, for one. Lack of a free-thinking culture, as two. Notice how the best and brightest Chinese come to American universities (still the best in the world) to study and later contribute to the US. Notice how software runs the world, and is so ridiculously dominated by the West; the best other countries can do is copy.

Now I’m not arguing that the US as a society has problems threatening its standard of living and morale, but I do not think that better, more powerful alternatives exist. At the same time, “USA #1” does not justify the trend of the current sexual dynamics. Just because a good basketball player happens to be white doesn’t mean that he’s good at basketball because he’s white – it’s probably because he’s tall.

The final topic: practical steps for this generation of men? Game, of course. But Game itself is a very interesting topic. What is it fundamentally about Game that empowers men to greater success with women? There are many different types of Game, so this becomes a difficult question. Canned opening lines may give one a greater sense of confidence when it elicits a good response. The best are clearly able to act on confidence alone, acquired after years (yes, years) of approaching.

These men gained their confidence entirely through trying to get girls! Isn’t that something? One usually thinks (indeed, academic literature and history would tell you the same) that one becomes confident due to acquiring some external factors, such as wealth or fame or a position of status, none of which are mutually exclusive of course.

At the end of the day, the result is the same: the men increased their confidence, and were able to change their sub-communications to reflect this. Women pick up on these subtle cues, and voila. Sub-comms of course refer to things like posture, voice tonality, eye contact, lack of nervous ticks, etc.

Anyways, closing thought is that I would hope men pursue Game without abandoning their drives towards more innovative ventures such as technology, science, business or politics. If Game becomes a substitute for these activities for some men, then I think it’s fair to say that these men are devolving and will become a part of the problem this society faces.

Thankfully, these noble pursuits tend to be intrinsically motivating and worthwhile, and usually help increase one’s confidence, and hence their Game.

Not necessarily true. Granted, being all those negative things will result in a lack of interest. But you can be a few of them and cultivate an aloof image and it will work….better than being a lapdog pandered.

The classic beta caterwaul. You defeat yourself before you even begin.

You imagine “aloof” to be “inert.” You are doing it wrong. A presence is distinguished by being obviously separate from (and above) its environment. You must be the master of what you survey, you don’t blend into the wallpaper. This is a motionless interaction with your surroundings. It is energetic and still: the energy radiates like an aura from you, and in the stillness you create a buzz among those who observe you.

There is an encyclopedia of subtleties — beginning with the most reliable one, amused mastery — between the regal man presiding over his court and the bump on the log obsessed with how everyone might view him. But though those subtleties are hard for the layman to detect, it doesn’t mean they’re not decisive.

Looks help as a universal advertisement for some baseline standard of quality, sure, but attractiveness, especially in the eye of the female beholder, becomes synonymous with more than physical characteristics the more she examines a subject. If you are a nobody, and you are convinced you are a cipher, you radiate that affect just as much as any other. Talk is cheap. Body language is our native language.

When the joint is jumping and you remain fixed, you become the reference point to the eye, no matter what your other aesthetic characteristics. When the place is motionless and you are the one moving, you are the outlier, and contrast is a key element of attracting attention. The human animal has hunter’s eyes in front of its head, enabling us to detect quarry disturbing the landscape or interrupting the continuity of expected pattern.

There is a reason why the king sits and everyone stands. He doesn’t go to his courtiers, they come to him. This is an acquired state of mind, of course, a pose that contradicts the inexperienced man’s urge to alleviate/broadcast his nerves through restless leg syndrome or fidgeting with his phone.

I could be well moved, if I were as you:
If I could pray to move, prayers would move me:
But I am constant as the northern star,
Of whose true-fix’d and resting quality
There is no fellow in the firmament.
The skies are painted with unnumber’d sparks,
They are all fire and every one doth shine,
But there’s but one in all doth hold his place:
So in the world; ’tis furnish’d well with men,
And men are flesh and blood, and apprehensive;
Yet in the number I do know but one
That unassailable holds on his rank,
Unshaked of motion: and that I am he.

— Julius Caesar

What your looks or height may not give you in terms of contrast, your calmness and air of authority can, and better: non-obvious attractors contribute to your je ne sais quois, disarming an observer in a way beauty never can because beauty is so insistent and so blunt.

Try this experiment. Use eye contact like you’re wearing sunglasses, and just observe what you will, when you will, for however long you will. Not staring anyone down like a creep, not ogling the flashy targets, but gazing about your domain in a naturalistic way, letting all present know that their attention is not the deciding factor for your wandering eye.

In terms of attractiveness, who will leave the stronger impression on a girl? The tall good-looking fellow who is interchangeable with couple dozen men she will meet the next few days? Or that one who looked at her without flinching … like he knew her already, had sized her up, and moved on … or maybe he didn’t notice her at all! What is it with that guy? Do I know him from somewhere? Who does he think he is? Maybe he knows me? Now he’s looking back over here again! Or wait, maybe he’s not. Is he looking for his waitress? Or at the much prettier girl next to me? …

Some of this is about the cards you’re dealt, sure. But most of it is about how you play the hand you got. Unfortunately you already psyched yourself into folding by a rich man’s bluff, before the game could truly begin.

‘ IT is like when your car dies in Dallas?” WTF.? The die-i
ng of every car in Dallas would not shorten my sleep; or change my attitude regarding the semi-human content that may or may not be locked down therein .as the fires finish their work.
The Texas Medical Center is already larger as a physical-space than the entirety of downtown Dallas. I might say that again, just for fun. But no mattere…there it is.

Texans brag \about the size of the institutions that they are able to self construct volunyarilty.. Brace yoursewlf:
Dell Computer.
Compact Computer
Texas Instruments
The Texas Medical Center. !00.000 Mds and other skilled workers.
The Houston Lifestock Show and Rodeo — Somehow sells million payimg visitors whoo gave it up to come the seat.

You see this on those Shark Tank/Lions Den type shows. Sometimes a woman will invent a useful baby product or household trinket. Overwhelmingly they make organic vegan sweets or an overpriced clothing line. The men come on with software, or sometimes something thats bullshit but is proprietary.

But doesn’t it suck for a Beta either way? Get a job, married, have occasional functional sex to get sex versus watch helplessly as Alphas clean up? Conversely, what of the unattractive women who can withhold sex as much as they can and not change the sexual marketplace one iota? Somehow this article only seems to apply to the top 40% or so men and women.

I come for the game advice, but I stay for the deep and incisive social analysis. Great stuff Heartiste, keep it up.

I’m hugely surprised that there hasn’t been more wailing and gnashing of teeth by the Feminists about this though, especially taking into account the recently removed CNN article about voting and women’s cycles. This work was very direct, none of the beating about the bush or weasly language that’s common to the reporting of any “controversial” results from scientific studies. Must have made some of the purveyors of pretty lies quite furious…

I think there’s something missed here. What’s described is clearly true, but the immigrant thing cuts both ways, by also importing some very old-school traditional chicks who adore their providers.

I’m optimistic because, in aggregate, the old-school chicks have more and more-capable children, whereas the feminist types tend not to reproduce. Check the birthrate differences between religious folks and atheists (who tend to have bought into the bullshit, or helped author it); it’s a real eye-opener.

Not reproducing tends to not reproduce your attitudes, as well, c.f. “Roe Effect.” i.e., the situation which is in play for our generation and the one following it is very likely to be a bubble.

3) Actively setting out to destroy. I don’t recommend it, but depending on
circumstances I do not necessarily condemn it either.

4) Gulching it. i.e. creating a community. Modern technology makes it impossible to hide a physical community. So it comes down to finding a host country, or some similar operation. Or, possibly, creating a virtual community
over the net. Comments?

I’ve been Galting for about 4 years now. Since my business, a law firm, died in the depression of 2008. I went solo at the wrong time. But my bigger problem was that I was a spineless fucking beta. And about 14 months ago, I found this site, and a couple of others, and had my first big dose of the red pill. And the red pill is indeed bitter. Because I had to swallow that much of what I believed and was taught is utter fucking bullshit.

I don’t think the system will improve. The only way for things to change is for the whole god damn house of cards to crumble. But I’ve decided to stop Galting. Because I have come to the conclusion that it is a sell out. So I choose to help destroy the system. And if not destroy it, then at least subvert it. These bitches want their freebies. Fine ladies, I’ll vote to get you your free contraception so you can slut it up.

My problem was getting over my age. I’m 46 and I thought I had just fucked the rest of my life. But as Roosh pointed out, even if you got a year of life left, you have time for game and getting laid. I owe it to myself, and my fellow red-pillers, to get out there and fuck shit up. Pun intended.

1. Well, vis-a-vis hypergamy, vote Democrat (or which ever party is going to promise free stuff and no accountability). 2. Use Game. 3. Feed the hamster.

Having said that, unbridled hypergamy isn’t the only social pathology we face today. The rise of the imperial presidency, the security state, exponential federal debt, single mother-hood, the drug war, the criminal justice industrial complex, the concentration of wealth, helicopter parents, the attempt to eradicate any and all types of risk, the pussification of men, the marginalization of manliness, the homogenization of the political parties (I don’t see that much of a difference between the parties.), massive amounts of obesity (pun intended), the inability of the majority of people to even acknowledge these issues let alone ameliorate them. To me, these are all going to come to a head. I just don’t know if it is going to take 100 years or 10. But I think it is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

I wish these articles would mention hypergamy for a change. Abundant sex with multiple partners? Just lol.

I lived on a college campus for years and didn’t get laid once, until I decided to start visiting escorts that is. About half my friends were incel as well. The other half were in LTR’s with plain janes.

It seems that, as Baumeitser points out, social institutions are going to continue to promote women at men’s expense. Men will continue to be deincentivised to create, to patent, to “succeed.” The only conclusion will be, at a minimum, the stagnation of society and culture.

Another out of my asshole guess is that while men will fail to traditionally succeed, many will find and use game. Men (well the ones that take the red pill) will succeed at getting game even while women learn of it. And I think this is fucking funny as hell. Because even though women will know of game, they are so narcissitic, so solopsitic as to believe that game could be applied effectively against them. Some attorney will bitch will conclude, “oh well maybe a single mother Wal-Mart worker will fall for game, but not me.”

So I think that civilization is indeed in for a rocky road, but game using men will continue to succeed at getting laid. Women are incapable of self-actualization. Self actualization require degree of honest introspection.. Women are incapable of looking at themselves in an honest, rational manner, determinining strengths and weaknesses, and making appropriate adjustments. This whole fucking site in a testament that men CAN and DO self-actualize.

Where I am in America, the shopping malls are full, the people are fairly blase, except for the hot chicks who just leer at their power.

All this doom and gloom shit is old guys unconsciously mourning their youth and projecting it onto the world, or paranoids seeing a Jew banker behind every tree and a black guy behind the Jew banker getting ready to mug him. And librul behind the black guy worrying about the treee.

As my late alpha-as-fuck dad would say ( on the beach at Iwo Jima, self made man) “They’re a bunch of nuts.”

It’s okay, Greg. Band together with all the other butthurt old men, and flee. Run, run, run away–like scared little bunnies, up into the hills, away from the the stem cell laboratories and the iPhones and the bad dark people in the white houses.

The day is coming when some older men are going to pull your butthurt butt out of the fire… or you’ll be serving up your butt for a real butthurtin’ to the bad dark people while they text llozozozozozzlzlzlzlooolll to their homeys on the iPhone’s they bought with your children’s lunch money, dweeb.

Mother Nature is just as flaky as her daughters. The rising generation is already turning all this shit on its head – it’s why the radfems are frantic.

Short history of the SMP:

Greatest Generation return from making the world safe for democracy on all-time alpha high – every male an alpha. GG women respond by spreading wide to propagate all those alpha genes = BABY BOOM.

Boomer men grow up being AMOGged by their dads, resentfully convince themselves and everyone else that real men are beta. Boomer women go along (intellectually) but in their loins they know the truth = BABY BUST, also try to pick up the alpha slack themselves. Both raise their female children to be the alphas they don’t want to let men be but know society needs to function.

Major fail. Country goes to shit.

Xer men grow up castrated by a society resenting AMOGgging GG’s, struggle to recapture the lost alpha mojo or follow the beta script to their deaths. Xer women flock to assholes in desperate search for any alpha they can get, keep trying to be the alphas their parents forced them to be. Run aground while desperately reassuring themselves that their lives are fabulous.

Millennial men and women see the bullshit their parents left them and start over from scratch. I see a alot of teens very comfortable in their masculinity/femininity and in seeking the complementary in their mates, while tuning out the PC bullshit altogether.

There’s a lot of truth in this. Happened somewhat differently for me, due to cultural, historical and geographic differences, but the essence was more or less the same. I see some hope in younger people, but, sadly, I don’t believe we will see a really major shift in our lifetimes.

“Alt-righters with ulterior motives hoping for an Obama win had better also hope Scalia or Alito don’t retire in the next 4 years.” (Chateau Heartiste)

Did someone hack into CH’s twitter? I suppose even reliable disseminatiors of the Light can be mistaken at times?

You seem to put some sort of value on the judicial branch it appears? How many judges were appointed by Bush I and Reagan who ended up being liberals? During the last Obama Care hearing it was Rogers who decided to hold up Obama care. It was under the Conservative Bush era judiciary that the “Patriot Act” was passed. The right to freedom of association was done away with in the late 1960’s by the court.

Get it out of your head that any of this matters anymore.

The Judicial branch, just like the Executive and Legislative branches, carryout the agenda of the globalist pig-dog elite. When the globalist elites want free speech to end in America, I don’t care if you have 9 Jesse Helms’s in the Judiciary, it’s going to happen.

What we must do, is what you’ve been doing; smash pretty lies. The real potential for transmutation of our system is through people like yourself. It’s not from getting the right judges in the court, or by getting the right President in.

The truth (the Light) is what these globalists creatures fear. The truth, disseminated by skilled writers, orators, and artists, over and over and over, is how this kingdom of darkness will fall. We also have to present a vision of a better world.

Hmm… I read Roberts’ decision in a different way. In my reading of the decision, Roberts objected to the idea that it was the Court’s responsibility (or indeed even its purview) to “create law”. Under this view of the decision, Roberts gave the Ds something that looked like a win, but was really a poison chalice, because 1. he established a Supreme Court precedent that the Commerce Clause cannot be used as the Ds love to use it, which is something that the Ds will be fvcked by for a very long time, and 2. he officially classified Obamacare as a tax not a fine (opening it to potentially be more easily defunded/overturned by the Legislature).

I think we’ve really gone too far on the Road to Serfdom to turn back, so please do not take my comment to be wide-eyed and super-positive. But as chess moves go, I think Robert’s decision was quite adroit, if I am understanding it correctly. In the end, will he be “too clever by half”? We’ll see.

Your comment, that we have had “conservative” nominees jump the fence on us is in a general sense correct, however. Souter has been a disappointment.

CH’s point is that with a GOP prez, at least the judge has a chance of being reasonable, but with a Dem prez, there is no chance.

It’s really too bad, because it seems to me that things are least bad otherwise when we have a Dem prez and a GOP Congress. The GOP listens to us rather than their dumbass prez (like Bush), and throws a spanner in the works. That’s why I always vote party-line GOP except for prez, when I always vote third-party.

Yet Uh-muricans can’t figure this out. They were furious with Bush, so they handed Congress over to the Dems. And even now, with Romney tied with Obama, several Senate races are leaning Dem. Dumb dumb dumb…

My reading of the opinion was that 5 of the justices did indeed say that ACA was not authourised by the commerce clause. But 4 of those 5 who denied the feds this extension of the commerce clause were on the dissent. 4 of the majority said that this was a legitimate exercise of the commerce clause. The bottom line is that this opinion is a cluster fuck. The idea that the federal government is limited to the express power asserted in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitutuion is history. The feds can do whatever the fuck they want, either through the commerce clause or their taxing power. Either way, there is a man with a gun telling you what to do.

@snoutsmack
” During the last Obama Care hearing it was Rogers who decided to hold up Obama care. It was under the Conservative Bush era judiciary that the “Patriot Act” was passed”

As to Roberts, many thing he was being blackmailed. It is a matter of public record that he has two adopted children. Rumor has it that the adoptions were less then Kosher, and that he was blackmailed. We will now this is true if either of the following happens:

A) Facing a critical case, he resignts.
B) He votes – either way – on a critical case, then resigns.

As to Patriot, Conservatives are as bad ad Liberals on the police state
stuff, i.e. they both love it.

The worst thing about Georges W. Boosh is that what is “conservative” in many (most?) Americans’ minds has become totally distorted (due to the Patriot Act yes, but even more worrisome was the Prescription Drug Act, which is a disastrous expansion of government rivaled only by Obamacare).

Thor is correct – both parties are “The Party of Government” at this point. Except one is infected with the virus of Constitutionalist/minarchist/libertarian views (R), and the other has been totally overtaken by the virus of Statism (D). I hope the virus overtakes the host in the case of the Rs. The Ds are long gone.

Tough decisions ahead. Probably impossible decisions, in a country run by (ostensibly) elected officials.

Don’t lend any credence to this idea “women earning the majority of degrees will lead to economic superiority.”

The majority of women earn the majority of WORTHLESS degrees. The only reason they make more than men in some instances is by and large because of government make work jobs that will soon go away once China refuses to extend and increase our $4 trillion line of credit with them.

Have you seen Werner Herzog’s documentary about the Conroe, Texas murders? Everything on this site is confirmed again and again in this film. Two psychopaths killing three people. One of them, looking boyish, gets the death sentence becuse he is beta. The other one gets life because two female jurors can’t bring themselves to execute this perfect specimen of a psychopath. A girl falls in love with him and marries him in prison and somehow smuggles out his extremely valuable sperm and manages to get pregnant.

You don’t have to stick your dick into everything that moves to be an alpha you retard. Fact is, his bitch lied to him, was a slut, and he straight up ditched her instead of being “understanding.” Dude is an alpha

If we define alpha as a male other males want to be and who females want as their mate, there is no damn way this loser is an alpha. He’s an omega whose world just got turned upside down. Terrified that his wife would compare him unfavorably to previous guys she fucked. Yeah, his wife scammed him, and I supposed he’s right to be pissed. But it doesn’t make him any less despicable.

“Terrified that his wife would compare him unfavorably to previous guys”

That’s the freudian feminist interpretation, regularly used by omega manboobs like yourself. The reality is that avoiding to invest emotionally in what other men used for pleasure is a very healthy male instinct.

Props for the guy in the article. His only mistake is to have married her ass in the first place, although she confessed that she was not a virgin.

You and the second commenter are libtard cuckold fetishists. Enjoy the sloppy seconds with your butthexed wives.

Thasswhatimtalkinbout confuses pvssy with truth and honor. Which is funny. If also sad.

Gimme truth and loyalty over random pvssy. Any day.

More feckless and faithless pvssy I can get, whenever I want. But a woman that will be a faithful and truthful part of my plan to go forth and achieve my/our Manifest Destiny … aye… therein lies the rub. Pun intended.

Tough to find this, in today’s world. I therefore will not wait for it or define myself by it in this hypergamous world – I will live as I will. If there is a female that shows up to promote and promulgate my world view, great. If not, well then, I won’t be around to see the result.

i have no idea what freudian feminist interps are. so i’ll defer to your superior wisdom.

but if you morons had bothered to read the original article, you’d have learned that whatever wifey’s past before meeting hubby, she was a loyal spouse. if she’s a whore/slut, she spent her whole damn marriage being his whore/slut.

sorry, but if you’re identifying with hubby here, you’re probably as big an omega as he is. no way is this fucking loser an alpha. everything about hubby makes me cringe.

I read some time ago that is extremely hard for aids to be transmitted vaginally. It more or less requires both anal sex and promiscuity

Sorry to offend (NOT!) but anal sex+promiscuity= gays. There are many others diseases that require condoms to be avoided, and there is also that pregnancy stuff. But if you use condoms because of aids, think twice.

The other way to get aids is through drug consumption when people share needles.

And that makes you think…. We a disease focused on druggies, fags that totally evades the rest of society. Why the hell do we spend money fighting aids!? Let the freaks who get it take care of themselves….

Is this a joke? If so, why is nobody laughing, other than a few alpha males?

Consider the rise of the “sexual harassment” and “date raype” foot stamping panty wetting hysteria among feminists, both female and “male.” All this can be viewed as sh*t tests created by womyn to raise the price of sex, as well as reduce the ease of access to vaginae. Yeah, womyn flood into the workplace and classrooms. Yeah, they appear to be more accessible. But, an average guy must jump through all sorts of new hoops in order to simply ask out a female, let alone get those panties off. And a lot of guys get deterred by the potential legal-social consequences of even talking to a female, let alone considering sex.

One reason, by the way, for rise of game.

It just may be that beta males opened up the workplace to womyn believing that if they were nice(tm) to womyn, womyn would invite them to that orgy they had read about in Playboy or seen on Girls Gone Wild–and they too could become Alpha for a Day. The NiceGuys(tm) will finally win!

But the flooding of the workplace with females gave womyn access to male economic power without actually having to contribute anything (most business startups and STEM discoveries originating with men). These womyn can play at careers, knowing that the Establishment will back them up. Consider how in some Scandinavian countries, the government requires corporations to appoint quotas of womyn to management positions. (The long term effects might be considered, of course, for this feminization of society, such as a loss of innovation and an inability to provide protection against neighbors who are much more aggressive.)

Now that more womyn are moving up the economic ladder, more womyn can get closer to that alpha male for whom the vaginae tingle. The critical thing is that people believe there is that orgy going on, somewhere, in order to keep the beta males serving female interests in the hopes of being thrown a bone or two. And most people will believe the delusion, even as civilization crumbles around them. Something to think about as the barbarians swarm over the walls…

The only way for things to change is for the whole god damn house of cards to crumble.

Pretty much everything I did from puberty on – hell, 8 years old on – was to get poon. Since girls never came to me naturally, I thought excelling at school would do the trick. So I kept my head down and busted my ass, believing that some day those panties would end up on MY floor.

High school ended, and I was still a virgin. College would be different, I thought. Girls would appreciate me there. Besides, everyone gets laid in college, right? Well, the years passed incredibly quickly. Pretty soon, I was an almost 22 year old virgin, despite being in great shape and doing countless cold approaches.

It was then I decided I’d had enough of he bullshit and called up an escort. I’ve been paying for sex ever since and have no intention of ever quitting. I just wish I’d went sooner, instead of waiting for this supposed “orgy.” Would’ve safed me a lot of aggravation.

Just think. There are suckers out there who’ll believe the lies until their hair goes grey. Meanwhile, for a couple hundred dollars here and there, they could be getting their bang on during their prime sex years.

Nick, You’re a guy after my own uh, er, balls. So many inexperienced guys won’t allow themselves to pay, as if somehow they aren’t paying in other ways, anyhow.

Me, my story is somewhat the opposite. While I engaged in no shortage of pseudo-prostitution as a young guy, most notably windowless peep shows and full-contact lap-dancing – we arrive at the same point, though my path to the club of guys who near-exclusively enjoy direct, professional-quality, and hassle-free sex from a variety of eager, grateful partners, has included no shortage of not-paid-for swingers-club orgies, and being on the D list of porn.

OK, maybe the D minus list.

I’ll tell you what you are really missing out on though: hassles. Lots of hassles.

There’s a current thread on a PUA forum where guys are breaking down how to pass girls around. ie – you fuck her then have your buddy come in and fuck her and pass her around with your bros.

It’s a little too gay for me, I like my girls to myself (though I’ll set them up with buddies if a buddy is into her and I’m done with seeing her and he doesn’t mind she’s my sloppy seconds), but I wonder what that sort of thing will do to the marketplace lol now when your girl goes home with a guy she might end up getting fucked by a room full of guys.

I don’t think it’ll catch on in the community cause most of us like the girls to ourselves, but the structure of how to do it is being figured out. There’s a lot more keyboard jockeys now though so the process isn’t as fast as it was back in the early days, there’s a lot more jockey theory arguing and shit that slows the process up now. But back in the day it was like watching a group of piranhas feeding on any new concept that came along till it was torn apart and fully broken down.

Where can I find this pussy-passing forum? I’m not one to ensconce myself in the self-delusion that a pussy isn’t being pounded by a lot of other cocks just because I don’t know who the other cocks belong to

Field report. Started reading CH in January, in the late spring I had a two-month relationship with a girl who scores +5 in the dating market value test for women (Classic Beta), and currently it seems I am involved with a girl who scores +22 (Greater Beta). I think I’m getting better at this.

In Australian capital cities, the newly arrived middle to lower middle class Indians ( i.e. cashed up ) and particularly the Muslims (mostly Lebanese) are outbreeding the Anglo and established Europeans at a frightening rate.

The kicker is that the Lebanese are also per capita over-represented in crime statistics.

Meanwhile, the Chinese are buying up as much of the apartments in new developments and houses in premium suburbs as they can.

Yet most of the political debate and attention is placed on a few boatloads of “boatpeople”; some 5 -10 000 people that manage to make it to our shores each year.

Wake up white man indeed.

Then again, the British stole EVERYTHING from the original Aboriginal people that had already been here for some 40 – 50 000 years.

Elysium Revisited (as linked to in your sidebar) is now cialis spam. Alias Clio’s blog has been closed and the archives made inaccessible. May I recommend replacing them with, for those few redpill ladies who read your blog, the Rules Revisited?

Baumeister overlooks a few things. First, many religious conservatives argue that a married man with children should get government handouts or tax breaks for having children. This means the need for a good job is lessened as well.
Unequal distribution of women is something different from women preferring the wrong men.
Why is it that white women who want to prove their Anti-Racism never choose Koreans, Chinese and Japanese men ? Don’t they have racist prejudices about manhood? Naughty, naughty…

””””’Women certainly desire sex too — but as long as most women desire it less than most men, women have a collective advantage, and social roles and interactions will follow scripts that give women greater power than men ””””

First told her i don’t eat pussy till i am married. Then gave a concession yea told her i wouldn’t eat the pussy till she got a tattoo of my name on her. She begged and pleaded but yea never gave in. Even told her not to put it on her neck but she wanted everyone to see it i guess going to see everyone she knows showing it off. What ya get when ya don’t give em everything they want i guess. She like nobody has ever not ate my pussy or made me beg to get my pussy ate. Well welcome to the new world.

allthough did marry her for the next life thats what the stars are for he he he
said she was too much of s liability in this one
plus it takes a lot of time and she got to pass tests not 3 months or two months or two weeks lol

I think the truth of this is that taken as a whole, male genetic material is not scarce, but DESIRABLE male genetic material is indeed scarce. This can be seen as the primary motivator for female hypergamy – gotta get that five minutes of Alpha, to perpetuate and optimize the race.

“Game” can be seen as an engagement of the frontal cortex in the male to affect the lizard brain of the female into thinking it is about to receive Alpha genes. And this works quite well, because when female hypergamy combines with female solipsism and modern feminism, the product in the female is a mind virus that overrides the host and puts it on tilt, if only temporarily. The “temporarily” part is why there is always a discussion on “Game” sites about “Buyer’s Remorse” – keeping up the “Alpha” is easy for “real Alphas” and must be learned for the rest.

If women cultivated their frontal cortex more, perhaps “Game” would not work. But fortunately that doesn’t happen.

“Real alphas” run into Buyer’s Remorse too. Hang out with a bunch of natural alphas and you’ll see it.

BR generally doesn’t have to do with how alpha the guy is or turns out to be. I’m not sure you understand what the term is about or what triggers it, no offense.

[heartiste: a lot of the current confusion among game skeptics (and haters) arises because people tend to forget or disregard the fundamentals. it’s always good to periodically reacquaint oneself with the foundations of that which one is studying or learning from.]

“What I meant had to do with staying congruent and “in-state” with the Alpha mindset. I find I can start slipping back into old behaviors when I lose state, and this triggers the woman to eject.”

ya, I figured this is what you probably meant, I just have to be a stickler for the terminology ’cause I’m pretty sure 90% of the crowd reading this site hasn’t delved deeper into PUA stuff than reading The Game and some sosuave/magic bullets and I don’t want the knowledge jumbled.

What you’re talking about is more an issue of congruency. If it’s any consolation, it’ll straighten out over time. You don’t become an Alpha over a weekend, it’s over years and years and YEARS of experience. After all, most of the natural alphas you know spent their entire childhood, adolescene, and early adulthood learning those mindsets and behaviors and beliefs…if you’re playing catch-up to them then unless you’re going out in the field constantly and making up for all that lost time, you’ve got a long road ahead of you before the “fake it till you make it” becomes “this is truly who I am” and you can’t identify with your old beta behaviors/mindsets anymore. It’s as if the socially conditioned beta chump you used to be was a completely separate person from your current self.

This change goes on in dozens of little categories/situations at different rates (maybe you’re a badass alpha in certain enviros but a pussy in relationships, etc.), but no one said it’d be easy. 🙂

The part a lot of anti-gamers don’t get is that you really do eventually change. At first you’re told “fake it till you make it” and you’re told “don’t compliment girls” and you stick to it and it works and you’re just acting, running a learned behavior of “if I don’t compliment girls, it shows X and Y and I get result Z”. And that’s cool, but you’re doing it because game told you to.

But, down the road, when you’ve met enough girls, and you’ve had enough interactions, and you’ve spent enough time IN THE FIELD actually approaching and seducing and working on your skills and meeting new women, not just theorizing about it like a bunch of the keyboard jockeys in the community do, you get to a point where you literally aren’t as impressed by women as you used to be and to get a compliment from you a woman literally has to EARN it because you’ve seen and done so much that you don’t just hand compliments out like candies.

At that point you’re still doing the same action (“not handing out compliments until she’s earned it”) but now you’ve internalized an alpha mindset where you expect girls to earn your compliments. You can no longer relate to the idea of handing out compliments all willy-nilly just because she has a pair of tits and knows how to do her makeup. You are 100% congruent to this new alpha belief.

A lot of guys will give up on game before they start hitting this crossover, because it’s HARD, and takes a lot of in-field work. And the anti-gamers will say “whatever it’s all an act you weren’t born an alpha so you’ll never truly BE one and you’re always playing a role and a real woman will see right through it as soon as your facade cracks and shatters!” because they don’t understand that once you cross over like that, there’s no more acting going on, you’re not a beta playing the role of an alpha, you are an alpha the way other alphas (who learned the same belief systems but earlier in life) are.

So hang in there, get out in the field a lot, and there’ll come a time where you’re no longer consciously/temporarily triggering her reptile brain, it’s just something your natural actions do for you.

Desirable male genetic material isn’t scarce; in fact, its far cheaper and easier to acquire than desirable female genetic material, which is why so many undesirable women are able to easily acquire it.

Dirk is right. But it is also obvious. The prize that is sought is not the alpha that will give off his sperm. That is fairly easy for a woman who is not a tatted whale or a wart hog. No, the prize sought is COMMITMENT. And that is hard to get, at least from the alphas, almost by definition – or at a minimum, this is THE scarce commodity. Hence the large amount of liteature in Cosmo of the “how do I get him to commit” variety. And the answer, though unpopular, is “you won’t, unless you settle for somebody roughly on your own level, as measured by percentiles”. Now, there is enough individual variation in the perception of desirability that there is some slack here, you might meet a soul mate. (This goes for either sex). But it will perforce be somebody roughly on your own level. This is one of the central ideas on this blog.

chick: all i wanted to do is lay on your chest with u playin with my hair an cry while u told me everything gonna be ok but instead i sit by myself cryin my eyes out cause i’m not in your arms i can’t feel your skin next to mine can’t even smell u cause u don’t care wheather or not u lose me it just another day 2 u ok done textin not getting nothin back

next day she got tattoo
i guess i am an asshole
but i mean i wasen’t feeling the love though really and yea i am always ready to have her leave haven’t giving away all my love i can’t and she allredy knows that hence her smashing herself against my rock

previous to that
me:and if your in pain come here for salvation quit fucking around
chick: when i say things not gonna work out (i dont get a u never know) i get laugh at an told yea your right wow 1 hell of a way 2 crush a person
me:im going to sleep
chick:what come home 2 a relationship that it don’t seem like your puttin in effort in2 cause you say its probably not gonna work so thats why you make it

4 hours after top chick: so u not gonna text back
i slept woke up said
morning babe
chick one minute later morning

really though this definetly not ideal relationship lolzzzzz
its drama central and insanity
the one with my wife has some drama but jesus if ya want excitment i guess way to go but it gets a little old and really ya got to not actually care which i mean i do care so yea just i guess am cold somewhat and don’t keep my heart on my fucking sleeve

fucked up part is i had to take her down to a van that she had to identify as the one she got raped in to the police
shit was all fucked up
i can’t handle that type of shit tried to console her but fuck
talk about some crazy shit to deal with

dam life is fucking rough sometimes
allthough hanging with this chick i don’t think about dieing
shits nuts and i kicked her out of my house last night
cause i’m stressed by the shit
don’t show it so much but i am
and i was about to reach for the shit she does
and that would be all bad
so had to make her go

It’s not a trick question, and it’s not 50%. True, about half the people who ever lived were women, but that’s not the question. We’re asking about all the people who ever lived who have a descendant living today. Or, put another way, yes, every baby has both a mother and a father, but some of those parents had multiple children.

Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago. Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men.

I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced. “

Great post with some solid backup, but unfortunately most people are so delusional you could hit them with a train and they’d pretend nothing happened.

These people are beyond saving, but that’s not a bad thing. There’d be no alphas without betas, so to a certain extent it’s actually a good thing that a large percentage of people remain in the dark. Not that shining a bright light in their face would change much anyway, but still – it affords those ‘in the know’ some very juicy opportunities, as you have undoubtedly discovered for yourself.

Alpha males have no shortage of sex, and to most of them it’s all they care about. The bastard spawn they help produce (women also have their share to blame, of course) means nothing to them. They go for #1.
Beta males are the opposite, where sex is very scarce is indeed. Go for option #2.

There are many things in life besides sex for one to be happy, and I’ll name a few:

1. Money (you’ll need it for a nice car, a good house, traveling);
2. Good health (visit your dentist and doctor regularly, and combine exercise with healthy food);
3. High level of education (as much as you can possibly get);
4. Travel as much as you can (you’ll need #1 for this).

My point is, leave women aside (as they do with you, don’t they?) and invest on yourself. Make money honestly as much as you can, and enjoy other aspects of life like traveling around the world. Money can set you free. Whenever you need sex, pay for it. You live in a country that prohibits prostitution? Leave your country, take your money and knowledge with you. Screw them.

@aboutme – If a man displays evidence of having the four items you list, is it not subliminal evidence that he’s somehow undesirable sexually? Will women think that if he were really desirable, he wouldn’t have to put all that effort into his well-being?

My point is for beta males to invest in themselves above all (of course don’t harm your family etc). If that attracts women, fine, but beware that it’s not the man’s character or honesty that’s doing its charm.

“Will women think that if he were really desirable, he wouldn’t have to put all that effort into his well-being?”

True, but that applies to alpha males.

Beta males are not desirable to women. If he increases his status (money, fame etc) he becomes more attractive to women, but it is not guaranteed and above all not the purpose I meant.
Happiness can be obtained from many sources. A man is doomed to fail if women are the solely source of happiness in his life.

What do we do as men to help get society on the right track? Vote Republican? Raise our daughters to be chaste?

What’s the winning play for a good looking young man? Play the game in the 20’s while advancing the career and then look for a young, chaste, submissive wife? My goal is a long and happy marriage with kids.

You need to make it painful for the Republicans to prevent them from reverting to their darker nature… namely the White Knight Religiosity Bvllsh¡t. Make it clear to anyone on that side that you will only vote for fiscal and legal sanity and small government, and make it clear to those on the Left that you think they’re great (and then quietly destroy them in all ways possible – demoralization, confusion, voting against them, etc.).

The sad reality is that it’s probably too late… hence the “poolside” comments bandied about here. Assuming this is correct, learn what you can to become sovereign in and of yourself – Thor has moved to the Caribbean and has bought his own land, Eliot wants to move to the NW of the USA to be with his people… whatever works for you… make it happen. Achieve escape velocity.

P.S. The more I think about it, the more I lean towards King A’s strongly Jesuit Christian religiosity, even though I am no longer a Christian. The Christians knew how to make the patrimony stick and work for us. What we have now is a Marxist morass. “50 Shades of Grey” indeed.

Jason may not be an actual female, but he sure thinks and talks like a spoiled SWPL cunt… which is no surprise, since the shabbos goy SWPL crowd is pretty much gender-interchangeable.

And anyone who boasts overlong about his alleged alphadom, whilst calling other men bitches, is merely grist for perdition. His true colors, should he ever have to escape the safety of his keyboard mouthing off, would be piss yellow and puke green.

So what the fuck are guys like me who grew up in the poorest of conditions, had absolutely ZERO opportunities to engage in any meaningful form of cultural exchange because of extreme poverty. Mediocre in looks and holding down a 10 dollar an hour job supposed to do when he wants to fuck hot lawyercunts?

All I know is I have game, and get laid, but the lawyercunts and 6 figure bitches who went to college and kept their looks into their thirties expect me to either

A)Have a 6 figure job myself or..

B)Be a swelled up ex con meathead with nothing to offer but a prison physique.

I live alone and do WTF I want when I want and don’t let anyone stop me, and yet it seems that shit doesn’t matter becuase the women are concentrating on shit that is totally beyond my own control.

So WTF are guys supposed to do with the SMV disadvantages that have almost no control over? Just fucking sit and suffer with fucking the fatties? I absolutely refuse to accept that bull shit. Never.

As a further clarification the working class women in my area suck. They are almost all addicted to hard drugs like heroin or cocaine, and so gravitate towards those types of men, ex con’s etc. and use their assets to mainpulate and gain drugs and wealth from men.

Whle the lawyercunts who make a decent salary are too stuck up and I’m to mediocre a male on the outside to make much of dent in their hypergamy instincts no matter how alpha I am on the inside.

Aloofness doesn’t work when bitches aren’t attracted in the first place.

Your results are entirely a consequence of your mindset. You have a lot of limiting beliefs holding you back, negative judgemental views toward the women you want, and a weak mental frame because you’re letting society and women dictate what a man is and what you’re supposed to be instead of defining it yourself.

Essentially you’re playing their game, trapped in their frame of reality, and you’re bitter about that. It’s all under your own control, but it’s not something you’re going to fix in a couple months or with a positive affirmation. You have years worth of work to do if you really want it handled.

Why would you want lawyercunts? They are almost always in their 30’s and attach a price to themselves (due to their degrees) way above their actual value. If your desire to fuck them is borne of a desire to spite them, there are far easier ways to do that.

I’d love to go for the younger women but the problem is that the one place with plenty of good looking young women is a 45 minute drive and getting a hotel room in a college town is damn near impossible.

Logistics are harsh in the rural areas of the Midwest sometimes.

Also, being 36 and having a job that only makes 10 bucks an hour isn’t exactly an alpha male trait now is it?

The Ideal Man, as far as most if not all women are concerned, is at least 6’2, younger than 30, looks like a soap stud and has Don Trump’s checkbook. The further you are from that ideal, the more problems you’re gonna have. Not just in the Midwest. ‘Game’ irrelevant.

“I’d love to go for the younger women but the problem is that the one place with plenty of good looking young women is a 45 minute drive and getting a hotel room in a college town is damn near impossible.”

Wahhhhhh😥😥😥

Move. Make friends with someone there who’s place you can stay at. Budget for hotel rooms and reserve way in advance. Get a fuckbuddy who will let you crash at her place. Make friends and drive and split hotel costs together. Move in with a buddy there. Or just suck it up, drive, don’t drink, and drive girls home to your place or crash at their place for the night.

Tyler slept (and pulled girls to) a mattress in a closet. His buddy lived on the lawn in a tent. Plenty of PUAs have moved to bigger cities because they wanted to get a handle on their skills and couldn’t do it in smaller towns. I myself used to take a 45 min bus to the bars and would have to blow $20 on a cab home each night which meant budgeting for that because I didn’t have a job. Hell, I lived on a buddy’s couch for a few months.

You don’t really want it. If you did, you’d find a way to get it. Making excuses to rationalize your lack of effort isn’t exactly an alpha male trait, now is it?

I’m being a dick because you’re being a pussy, I figure the two go hand in hand lol Suck it up and do what you have to do, or quit bitching about it and find a way to love fucking the 5s and 6s you’re currently fucking.

Liberal arts aren’t nonsense. If you’ve ever read a story or seen a movie or listened to a speech, then you’ve beneftted from them. In fact, studies have shown that people who major in liberal arts often advance further in organizations than those who don’t.

[…] Women certainly desire sex too — but as long as most women desire it less than most men, women have a collective advantage, and social roles and interactions will follow scripts that give women greater power than men (Baumeister et al. 2001). We have even concluded that the cultural suppression of female sexuality throughout much of history and across many different cultures has largely had its roots in the quest for marketplace advantage (see Baumeister and Twenge 2002). Women have often sustained their advantage over men by putting pressure on each other to restrict the supply of sex available to men. As with any monopoly or cartel, restricting the supply leads to a higher price. [källa] […]

[…] But this pattern of male behavior makes more sense if we keep in mind that getting sex is a high priority for men, especially young men. Being at a permanent disadvantage in employment and promotion prospects, as a result of affirmative action policies favoring women, is certainly a cost to young men, but perhaps not a highly salient one. What is salient is that sex is quite readily available. As Regnerus reports, even a man with dismal career prospects (e.g., having dropped out of high school) can find a nice assortment of young women to share his bed. [källa] […]

[…] Some research indicates that career motivation really intensifies for men when they become fathers. Indeed, it has long been known that the transition to parenthood has opposite effects by gender. New mothers withdraw from their work and careers; new fathers embrace work and career with enhanced seriousness and motivation (for a review see Baumeister 1991). [källa] […]

[…] The female contribution of sex to the marriage is evanescent: As women age, they lose their sexual appeal much faster than men lose their status and resources, and some alarming evidence even indicates that wives rather quickly lose their desire for sex (Arndt 2009). To sustain a marriage across multiple decades, many husbands must accommodate to the reality of having to contribute work and other resources to a wife whose contribution of sex dwindles sharply in both quantity and quality—and who also may disapprove sharply of him seeking satisfaction in alternative outlets such as prostitution, pornography, and extramarital dalliance. [källa] […]

[…] As much as I agree with a lot of what Baumeister has written, I do find it a little simplistic to reduce all male motivations to just sex. It does the male gender a big disservice (and somewhat insulting) to reduce all of them to mindless, sex obsessed machines whose sole purpose or programming is to obtain sex. Isn’t this what feminists assert all along ? We need to control men because they are nothing more that sex beasts ? The motivations for building societys and civilizations is pretty much survival or conquest or control over the things that would destroy man and womankind. What I find admirable in men is their refusal to be victims of nature or circumstances and will fight to survive using a combination of will, brawn and intelligence and creativity. Why improve weapons and military strategy ? To get sex or to avoid being slaughtered at the hands of avowed enemies ? Why build dams and irrigation systems ? To get sex or to avoid starvation at the hands of “mother” nature ? Why improve knowledge of biology and science to create better medicines ? To get sex or to avoid suffering the pain, incapacitiation and indignity of disease ? Like I say, no man has ever died from a lack of sex, but they sure have died from war, disease, starvation, predation by bigger stronger animals, natural disasters and of course, a lack of status amongst their male peers. Unlike women who turn on each other in the face of threats, fighting amongst themselves for the last scraps of food or for acceptance by male conquerers, men at least can band together and say There must be a better way than this. This is what men are admired for and they will come into their own once again when civilization collapses all around us. [källa] […]

Oh come on tell me you have not joined the ranks of the Nate Silver bashers. The guy has done a perfectly creditable job and if you actually understand statistics nothing that comes out of his site should be any surprise at all. And it’s not just Silver–the other quants have Obama as an even larger favorite than he does.

Try not to weep too much at Romney’s demise tomorrow. If only because in actuality there’s not much difference between the parties on the stuff that actually matters anyways.

Minorities almost always get the boot. That’s how France came to be filled with French, Germany with Germans, Hungary with Hungarians, Ireland with Irish, and so-on. The idea behind forming Israel was to have a place where Jews could be in the majority and therefore be the booters, not the bootees.

@CH, thanks for useful paper reference. It led to me interviewing Dr. Roy Baumeister on my non-commercial (N-C) college radio show aired Nov. 8th, 2012. I don’t reference on the N-C airwaves my personal haunts on the Internet to ensure separation from N-C regs and my freedom such as it is. I like to comment here at CH. I don’t mention my blog either. Just an email and RadioFlag.com . For a while, I will have the interview at djrealitydoug.github.com . The whole show mp3 is available right now at: http://wsbf.net/bc_china/archpk/16552.mp3 .

I think that free money for single and even never-married mothers has a place here. I’m struck by the number of women who are gathering out of wedlock children from the bad boys, ignoring easy to use, easy to obtain birth control.

50% of children now born outside of marriage is an astonishing statistic. I’d like to know if any civilization has ever had such a rate in the absence of war or other disruption.

Of course many factors for the rise in numbers of single mothers have been explained well here but I think there is one more factor , a small one, and it is my own little theory ( ok maybe it already exists but I have never read about it )

I think fat and ugly women want a child because it is a way of getting “instant love”.

not romantic love of course but love for and from the child; a sort of two for one.

no matter if the kid is stupid or ugly the mother will instantly love it ( that is why there is an expression ” a kid only a mother could love ” ). The kid will be the center of her universe and her reason to live; instant and deep love.

and the kid no matter if his mother is fat or ugly will love her to death ( well for a while anyway, it may turn around in its teen years ).

I have come to this conclusion afer having watched many fat and/or ugly single mothers.
They look extremely happy and look like they are in love head over heels.
The kid also looks super happy and in love head over heels with his mother.

yes I think some women who know that because they are fat and/or ugly have very slim chances of ever finding a man who will be madly in love with them and whom they will love back madly chose to have a child – consciously or unconsciously – because this gets them instant love from someone who will not judge them on their looks their obesity, someone who will not leave them etc etc ( as I said at least until the teenage years when they may turn on the mother )

a child is instant love and instant loyalty no matter if the mother is fat, ugly, uneducated, poor, a crack whore etc

instant love from the child and instant love for the child

this may be a factor that contributed to this strange phenomenenom we have in our fast decaying Western Civilization

( and writing long posts like this makes me wish I could write as well as Heartiste…damn! )

I have this theory that fat/ugly women may want to have a child because – unconsciously or consciously it does not matter – they know it will get them instant love —from— the child and —for— the child

she will love the child instantly even if it is stupid, ugly or crippled, and the kid will also love the mother even if she is very fat, very ugly ,
the kid will not judge her, will love her madly even if she is fat, ugly or has a lazy eye, and the child be will be loyal ( at least until the teen years where it may turn on the mother ) it will be instant and deep love for the both of them.

This instant and almost garanteed love is a substitute for the kind of love she wishes she could find with a man, but that was unlikely to happen to begin with, and is less likely to happen as she is getting older and fatter every year

a child with or without a father around is instant love

instant love for the child

instant love from the child

a two for one , instant and garanteed

and no matter how fat or ugly the mother is and no matter how ugly or stupid her child is, the government will ” reward ” them anyway ( and so will the grandparents who also don’t acre the child is stupid or ugly )

instant love and instant gratification both emotional and financial/material